LA  I 


f(oiT|ar|i0'n'|  arid  tlie 
d(epuld  id 

A  DISCUSSION  OF  THE  PURPOSES,  AS¬ 
SUMPTIONS,  PRINCIPLES  AND  METHODS 
OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
HIERARCHY. 


—  BY  — 

REV.  ISAAC  J.  LANSING,  M.A., 

(Of  Worcester ,  Mass.) 

—  WITH  AN  — 

INTRODUCTION 

—  BY  — 

REV.  LEROY  M.  VERNON,  D.D., 

( Late  Superintendent  of  Missions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 

Church  in  Italy). 


BOSTON: 

W.  KELLAWAY,  PUBLISHER. 


1889. 


BX 

nid 

,L3; 


COPYRIGHT 
ISAAC  J.  LANSING, 
1889. 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MA  02167 


SC.P.  -2.1980 


PREFACE. 


A  great  theme  here  invites  the  reader’s  attention. 
Macaulay  says :  “The  polity  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
the  very  masterpiece  of  human  wisdom.  .  .  .  The  expe¬ 
rience  of  twelve  hundred  eventful  years,  the  ingenuity 
and  patient  care  of  forty  generations  of  statesmen,  have 
improved  that  polity  to  such  perfection,  that,  among  the 
contrivances  which  have  been  devised  for  deceiving  and 
controlling  mankind,  it  occupies  the  highest  place.”  The 
animating  soul,  of  that  polity  is  the  Pope,  who  from  Rome 
enforces  it  throughout  the  world,  with  a  refined  astuteness, 
hereditary  and  cumulative,  unequalled  in  human  history. 
The  many-tongued  Catholic  masses,  imbued  with  Romanist 
doctrines,  and  invested  by  that  polity  as  by  the  shirt  of 
Nessus,  with  the  Pope  at  their  head,  constitute  living 
Romanism,  aggressive,  imperious,  and  relentless  as  ever. 

This  vast  power,  besides  assuming  and  exercising  the 
most  blasphemous  religious  prerogatives,  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years,  has  dispensed  crowns  and  dethroned 
kings,  absolved  peoples  from  allegiance  to  their  rightful 
sovereigns,  or  sanctioned  their  bondage  under  tyrants, 
according  to  its  own  pleasure  or  caprice  ;  nor  has  it  ever 
formally  or  impliedly  abandoned  any  of  its  enormous 
pretensions.  There  is  not  a  people  in  the  Old  World 
whose  peace  it  has  not  disturbed,  whose  rulers  it  has  not 
embroiled,  the  administration  of  whose  government  it  has 
not  embarrassed,  whose  rights  it  has  not  usurped,  and 
whose  soil  it  has  not  drenched  with  blood.  Its  arrogant 
and  hoary  hierarchy  early  began  from  the  Vatican  to 
project  its  all- pervading  system  over  our  country,  now  by 
gigantic  institutions  commands  centres  of  power  through¬ 
out  the  land,  has  a  large  and  rapidly  increasing  consti¬ 
tuency  among  our  people,  and  daily  becomes  more 
pronounced  and  menacing,  faithful  to  its  own  tradi¬ 
tions. 


IV 


Preface. 


The  relations  of  Romanism  to  the  Republic,  therefore, 
form  a  subject  of  supreme  importance  and  of  burning 
actuality,  most  urgently  commending  itself  to  the  prompt 
attention  of  every  citizen,  to  the  dispassionate  considera¬ 
tion  especially  of  the  patriot,  the  journalist,  the  teacher, 
the  moralist,  the  divine,  and  the  statesman,  as  the  makers 
of  public  opinion.  Wherefore  nothing  could  be  more 
opportune  than  Mr.  Lansing’s  vigorous  volume  ;  than  the 
weighty  and  fearless  terms  with  which  he  eloquently 
invokes  the  public  attention  and  developes  his  absorbing 
argument.  This  book  is  secured  a  very  high  practical 
value  by  the  judicious  limitation  and  selection  of  the 
points  to  be  treated,  and  by  their  ample  and  triumphantly 
conclusive  elaboration  within  modest  limits. 

The  vastness  of  Romanism,  with  its  debatable  features 
and  history,  has  often  proven  a  snare  to  authors,  espe¬ 
cially  the  more  ambitious.  Any  portrayal  of  Romanism 
always  encounters  two  serious  preliminary  embarrass¬ 
ments:  (1)  it  requires  a  statement  and  discussion  so 
extended,  that  the  public  has  neither  the  time  nor  the 
patience  to  follow  them  to  the  end  ;  (2)  it  involves  saying 
priuch  that  is  harsh  and  harrowing  to  urbane  natures,  and 
much  more  quite  unpresentable  to  decent  ears  or  pure 
eyes.  Hence  there  always  remains  of  it,  as  of  “the  dark 
continent,”  a  vast  breadth  and  bulkiness  unexplored  and 
unknown,  and  an  abysmal  nastiness  never  fully  uncovered 
or  duly  understood.  By  a  skill  of  his  own,  our  author 
has  partially  obviated  these  difficulties,  and  within  the 
lids  of  a  current  volume  has  compressed  a  bold  character¬ 
ization  and  a  perfectly  convincing  argument.  Such  is. 
the  nervous  style,  the  cogent  reasoning,  the  bow-like 
force  of  the  cumulative  evidence,  that,  though  the 
points  discussed  be  relatively  few,  and  the  argument 
comparatively  brief,  the  irrevocable  conclusion  smites 
like  a  Trojan  arrow,  and  unerringly  pierces  the  Achilles’ 
heel  of  the  Papal  Colossus. 

The  core  of  this  work  may  be  expressed  in  a  single 
sentence :  Rome’s  domineering  imperialism,  with  Jesuit¬ 
ism  its  power  behind  the  throne,  together  striving  to 
centralize  “  all  the  powers  on  earth  in  the  bosom  of  one 
master  of  souls  ”  :  its  essential  incompatibility  and  inevit- 


Preface. 


v 


able  unending  antagonism  with  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  our  country,  its  relentless  crusade  against  our  public 
schools,  its  stealthy  undoing  of  morality,  and  finally, 
its  absolute  irreconcilability  with  Protestantism  —  thus 
Romanism  is  irremediably  hostile,  politically  and  relig¬ 
iously,  to  our  Republican  Commonwealth. 

Our  author  has  an  ideal  temper  and  method  for  contro¬ 
versy^  ;  writh  indisputable  facts,  keen  analysis,  unimpeach¬ 
able  authorities,  and  irrefragable  proofs,  he  advances 
exhaustively,  never  losing  his  rational  balance,  never 
stooping  to  invective  nor  tarrying  to  amuse :  with  sus¬ 
tained  acumen  and  intensifying  logical  force,  he  bears 
down  on  the  false  and  foreign  system,  and,  like  the  mills 
of  the  gods,  grinds  to  powder.  Nor  is  the  work  impaired 
by  any  extravagance  in  statement  or  illustration,  in  form 
or  coloring,  in  matters  of  fact,  or  in  cases  of  opinion. 

What  is  to-day  observable  and  appreciable  of  Popery 
in  its  oldest  realms  and  highest  seats,  even  in  its  sanctum 
sanctorum ,  fully  justifies  the  solemn  indictment.  After 
nearly  eighteen  years’  residence  in  Rome,  and  familiar 
contact  with  Romanism  throughout  Italy,  the  writer  bears 
witness  that  our  author’s  testimony  on  all  points  is 
undeniably  true.  Perfectly  true,  indeed ;  but  not  yet 
the  whole  of  the  truth.  The  portraiture  of  Popery,  found 
in  her  own  records,  and  colored  by  her  own  hand,  is 
darker,  gloomier  still. 

The  Canon  Law,  the  undisputed,  fundamental  code  of 
Romanism,  is  utterly  incompatible  with  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  our  Republic,  as  witness  the  following  leading 
provisions,  gleaned  therefrom  by  Dr.  G-.  F.  Von  Schulte, 
Professor  of  Canonical  Law  at  Prague,  viz.  :  — 

“I.  All  human  power  is  from  evil,  and  must  therefore  be 
standing  under  the  Pope. 

“II.  The.  temporal  powers  must  act  unconditionally,  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  orders  of  the  spiritual. 

“III.  The  Church  is  empowered  to  grant,  or  to  take  away, 
any  temporal  possession. 

“  IV.  The  Pope  has  the  right  to  give  countries  and  nations 
which  are  non-Catliolic  to  Catholic  regents,  who  can  reduce 
them  to  slavery. 

“  V.  The  Pope  can  makes  slaves  of  those  Christian  subjects 
whose  prince  or  ruling  fiower  is  interdicted  by  the  Pope. 


VI 


Preface. 


“  YI.  The  laws  of  the  Church,  concerning  the  liberty  of  the 
Church  and  the  Papal  power,  are  based  upon  divine  inspira¬ 
tion. 

“VII.  The  Church  has  the  right  to  practice  the  uncondi¬ 
tional  censure  of  books. 

“VIII.  The  Pope  has  the  right  to  annul  State  laws,  treaties, 
constitutions.,  etc. ;  to  absolve  from  obedience  thereto,  as  soon 
as  they  seem  detrimental  to  the  rights  of  the  Church,  or  those 
of  the  clergy. 

“  IX.  The  Pope  possesses  the  right  of  admonishing,  and,  if 
needs  be,  of  punishing  the  temporal  rulers,  emperors,  and  kings, 
as  well  as  of  drawing  before  the  spiritual  forum  any  case  in 
which  a  mortal  sin  occurs. 

“  X.  Without  the  consent  of  the  Pope  no  tax  or  rate  of  any 
kind  can  be  levied  upon  a  clergyman,  or  upon  any  church  what¬ 
soever. 

“XI.  The  Pope  has  the  right  to  absolve  from  oaths,  and 
obedience  to  the  persons  and  the  laws  of  the  princes  whom  he 
excommunicates. 

“XIII.  The  Pope  can  annul  all  legal  relations  of  those  in 
ban,  especially  their  marriages. 

“XIII.  The  Pope  can  release  from  every  obligation,  oath, 
vow,  either  before  or  after  being  made. 

“XIV.  The  execution  of  Papal  commands  for  the  persecu¬ 
tion  of  heretics  causes  remission  of  sins. 

“XV.  He  who  kills  one  that  is  excommunicated  is  no  mur¬ 
derer  in  a  legal  sense.” 

After  the  above,  as  well  expect  concord  between  light 
and  darkness,  as  between  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 
Yet  the  foregoing  utterances  are  but  a  tithe  of  the  like 
assumptions  to  be  found  in  twenty  folio  volumes. 

Within  the  last  week  Cardinal  Gibbons  of  Baltimore 
has  posed  before  the  country  as  an  advocate  of  religious 
toleration,  and  the  press  has  made  much  of  it  far  and 
wide.  What  swain-like  simplicity !  Now  one  of  two 
things :  either  the  Cardinal  is  sincere,  and  therefore  an¬ 
tagonistic  to  the  principles,  traditions,  and  usages  of  his 
Church,  and  doomed  finally  to  recant  and  reform  ;  or  he 
simply  plays  a  part,  winked  at  by  the  Pope,  in  order  to 
ingratiate  himself  and  his  Church  with  the  people,  and  to 
smooth  the  way  for  new  encroachments.  This  dilemma  is 
amply  corroborated  by  the  following  paragraphs  from  the 
Syllabus  of  Pius  IX.,  issued  Dec.  8th,  1864,  and  subse¬ 
quently  by  the  Decree  of  Infallibility  confirmed  as  truths 
eternal  and  equal  in  authority  with  the  Decalogue,  viz.  : 


Preface . 


Vll 


“The  State  has  not  the  right  to  leave  every  man  free  to  pro¬ 
fess  and  embrace  whatever  religion  he  shall  deem  true. 

“It  has  not  the  right  to  enact  that  the  ecclesiastical  power 
shall  require  the  permission  of  the  civil  power  in  order  to  the 
exercise  of  its  authority. 

“It  has  not  the  right  to  treat  as  an  excess  of  power,  or  as 
usurping  the  rights  of  princes,  anything  that  the  Roman  Pon¬ 
tiffs  or  Ecumenical  Councils  have  done. 

“It  has  not  the  right  to  adopt  the  conclusions  of  a  National 
Church  Council,  unless  confirmed  by  the  Pope. 

“It  has  not  the  right  of  establishing  a  National  Church  sep¬ 
arate  from  the  Pope. 

“It  has  not  the  right  to  the  entire  direction  of  public  schools. 

“It  has  not  the  right  to  assist  subjects  who  wish  to  abandon 
monasteries  or  convents.” 

Then  in  the  same  Syllabus  the  rights  and  powers  of  the 
Church  are  affirmed  thus,  viz.  : 

*  “She  has  the  right  to  require  the  State  not  to  leave  every  man 
free  to  profess  his  own  religion. 

“She  has  the  right  to  exercise  her  power  without  the  per¬ 
mission  or  consent  of  the  State. 

“She  has  the  right  to  prevent  the  foundation  of  any  National 
Church  not  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

“She  has  the  right  to  deprive  the  civil  authority  of  the  entire 
government  of  public  schools. 

“She  has  the  right  of  perpetuating  the  union  of  Church  and 
State. 

“She  has  the  right  to  require  that  the  Catholic  religion  shall 
be  the  only  religion  of  the  State,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 

“She  has  the  right  to  prevent  the  State  from  granting  the 
public  exercise  of  their  own  worship  to  persons  immigrating 
into  it. 

“She  has  the  power  of  requiring  the  State  not  to  permit  free 
expression  of  opinion.” 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  history  of  Romanism 
shows  the  oft-repeated  application  of  all  the  foregoing 
claims  and  principles.  The  present  Pontiff,  Leo  XIII., 
in  a  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Perigueux,  July  27,  1884,  ex¬ 
plicit^  confirms  the  foregoing,  thus  :  “The  teaching  given 
by  this  Apostolic  See,  whether  contained  in  the  Syllabus 
and  other  Acts  of  our  illustrious  predecessor,  or  in  our 
own  Encyclical  Letters ,  has  given  clear  guidance  to  the 
faithful  as  to  what  should  he  their  thoughts  and  their  con¬ 
duct  in  the  midst  of  the  difficulties  of  times  and  events. 
There  they  will  find  a  rule  for  the  direction  of  their  minds 


Preface . 


•  •  • 

vm 

and  their  works.”  Again,  in  his  Encyclical  of  1885,  he 
approves  the  Syllabus,  repudiates  the  idea  that  “each  man 
should  be  allowed  freely  to  think  on  whatever  subject  he 
pleases,”  and  condemns  any  government  in  which  k*every 
one  will  be  allowed  to  follow  the  religion  he  prefers.” 

Some  years  ago,  Leo  XIII.  addressed  an  elaborate  let¬ 
ter  to  three  distinguished  Cardinals  of  his  Court,  announ¬ 
cing  his  purpose  soon  to  open  to  literary  men  the  Vatican 
Library,  on  conditions  to  be  established.  Under  cover  of 
this  rare  token  of  papal  liberality  the  Pope  also  invited 
their  Eminences  to  take  into  consideration  the  having  the 
history  of  the  world  re-written,  since,  as  he  alleged,  the 
histories  extant  deal  incorrectly  and  prejudicially  with  the 
history  of  the  Church.  The  work  was  to  be  facilitated, 
and  accuracy  promoted,  by  the  treasures  the  new  histo¬ 
rians  would  find  in  the  manuscripts  and  tomes  of  the  Vat¬ 
ican.  The  expulsion  of  Swinton’s  History  from  the  Bos¬ 
ton  schools  may  be  a  sequence  from  the  Pope’s  new 
criteria :  others  will  follow.  The  Papacy,  professedly 
in  vicegerent  command  of  mankind  for  fifteen  centuries, 
lias  ever  been  making  its  own  and  guiding  the  world’s  his¬ 
tory,  filling  the  earth  with  protected  fraternities  of  stu¬ 
dents,  writers  and  copyists,  making  iniquisition  into  uni¬ 
versal  literature,  changing  and  correcting  much,  destroying 
more  by  her  Index  Expurgatorius ,  condemning  books  and 
damning  their  authors,  adorning  the  good  with  her  impe¬ 
rial  imprimatur ,  and  their  authors  with  academic  degrees 
and  patents  of  knighthood,  burning  way  ward  thinkers  and 
writers  at  the  stake  with  fagots  of  their  own  volumes,  for 
ages  stimulating  and  fostering,  like  a  divine  Maecenfas, 
the  best  genius  of  the  Church,  and  magisterially  dominat¬ 
ing  the  pen  as  the  sword  and  the  sceptre,  and  after  all  is 
still  unhappy  of  her  achievement  and  of  the  writing  that 
is  written.  Alas,  alike  for  fallible  history  and  infallible 
Pope  !  The  new  pontifical  proposal  is  a  mystery  of  cun¬ 
ning  and  courage.  The  opening  of  the  library  was  a  de¬ 
lusion  ;  the  recast  history  will  remain  a  project.  Both  are 
signs  not  to  be  forgotten.  Leo  XIII.  sees  Romanism  con¬ 
demned  by  history ;  more  still  is  it  by  the  gospel  and  civ¬ 
ilization. 

The  momentous,  the  perilous  fact  is  the  public  indiffer- 


Preface. 


IX 


ence  to  the  insidious  advances  and  encroachments  of  this 
-despotic  and  mighty  medievalism.  While  it  is  quietly  in¬ 
terweaving  itself  with  the  national  life,  and  strategically 
preparing  the  basis  for  its  future  self  assertion,  contentious 
action  and  usurpations,  almost  no  one  takes  heed  or  offers 
.a  serious  obstruction.  Were  any  one  indeed  openly  and 
vigorously  to  controvert  its  character,  its  progress  and 
grasping  for  power,  among  the  Catholic  population  of  our 
large  cities,  the  result  would  be  mob  violence.  There,  and 
on  this  question,  free  speech  is  the  ante-war  free  speech 
south  of  Mason  and  Dixon’s  line.  The  new  thraldom, 
like  the  old  bondage,  requires  to  be  let  alone.  The  public 
peril  is  neglected  for  personal  aims.  Pride,  pleasure  and 
luxury,  like  a  leash  of  hounds,  bay  on  the  heels  of  gratifi¬ 
cation.  Vanity  parades,  ambition  climbs,  business  hastes 
to  be  rich.  The  press  panders,  the  politicians  trim,  the 
preachers  doze :  the  priests  sow  tares.  The  country 
drifts,  drifts,  and  drifts.  Meanwhile  duty  commands 
every  voice  to  cry  aloud  and  spare  not,  the  pen  and  the 
press  to  unite  in  impetuous  sustained  appeal,  enforced  by 
the  priceless  interests  of  our  imperilled  civil  and  religious 
liberties  and  institutions.  When  the  Jesuit  assassin 
stabbed  Fra  Paolo  Sarpi  of  Venice,  to  end  his  too  liberal 
and  evangelical  writing,  and  fled,  leaving  his  weapon 
sticking  in  the  wound,  Sarpi  himself  plucked  the  bribed 
stiletto  from  his  flesh,  and  holding  it  aloft,  said  :  “  The 
pen  of  the  Papacy  !  ”  Contrariwise  the  pen  is  the  sword 
of  Protestantism,  civil  and  religious,  for  holy  war  against 
Popery.  “Awake,  O  sword,  against”  the  deceiver  and  the 
destroyer ;  “put  up  thyself  into  thy  scabbard”  only  when 
the  people  are  delivered  by  knowledge  ;  recognizing  that 
Romanism  and  the  Republic  are  irreconcilable  opposites; 
that  the  Tiara  and  our  starry  Banner  are  divorced  as  the 
poles,  incongruous  as  the  Roman  wolf  and  the  American 

LEROY  M.  VERNON. 

Syracuse ,  N.  Y.,  April  30th ,  1889. 


.  ■ 


Vi  ^ 

liu  *•.  U\  --Kv  i  i'-'tffi&n* 

- 

< ! 

*  ■■  '  •"'•  f  ••'  :  .■■■■■••  .••[;.*■■••  V.,} 

<*  '■  l'l  .  •  /j:  ;  i  v  ).fj  ,  t 

ll 

■  -  ’<•>:  i  :  ..  ,s  i:j  ,r.  ;  ;  '  ; :  *0  '  u 

' 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE. 


This  volume  contains  fourteen  discourses  on  Romanism 
and  the  Republic,  delivered  in  the  Salem  Square  Con¬ 
gregational  Church,  Worcester,  Mass.,  during  the  Sum¬ 
mer  and  Autumn  of  1888. 

From  the  first  until  the  last  of  eighteen  sermons,  which 
were  delivered  on  consecutive  Sabbath  evenings,  public 
interest  was  general  and  intense.  Throngs  of  serious 
and  thoughtful  people  crowded  the  Church,  while  great 
numbers  sought  for  even  standing-room  in  vain.  Calls 
for  the  publication  of  the  addresses  as  delivered  were 
immediate,  and  from  many  quarters.  As  reported  steno- 
graphically,  they  were  printed  from  week  to  week  in  the 
New  England  Home  Journal ,  which,  with  one  other 
notable  exception,  was  the  only  paper  that  gave  them 
currency. 

Repeated  requests,  at  that  time  and  since,  that  they 
might  be  preserved  in  a  more  permanent  form,  have 
resulted  in  the  compilation  of  the  present  volume.  This 
design  was  not  in  view  originally  in  their  preparation. 
Delivered  extemporaneously,  and  reported  as  spoken,  the 
preacher  used  no  notes  except  memoranda,  which  related 
to  the  numerous  books  of  reference  which  were  taken  to 
the  pulpit,  and  from  which  quotations  were  read  in  the 
presence  of  the  congregation.  Therefore  their  style  is 
that  of  popular  address,  rather  than  the  more  finished 
form  of  deliberate,  literary  execution.  Even  the  rugged 
exclamatory  passages,  —  which  perhaps,  could  only  be 
excused  or  justified  by  the  impassioned  earnestness  of  the 


Author's  Preface. 


•  • 

Xll 

moment  of  their  utterance,  the  author  has  thought  best  to 
retain,  that  the  people  who  heard,  when  the}T  come  to  read, 
may  not  miss  remembered  and  often  applauded  passages. 
For  in  each  sermon  of  the  entire  course,  a  sympathetic 
audience  encouraged  and  sanctioned  the  speaker’s 
utterances  by  outbursts  of  assent  and  commenda¬ 
tion  ;  which,  it  may  be,  should  have  been  recorded  in  the 
text,  as  the  valued  expression  of  their  sentiments. 

Two  discourses  to  men  only,  “  On  the  Romish  Confes¬ 
sional,”  are,  of  necessity,  omitted  from  this  volume, 
because  the  citations  which  they  contained  from  Roman 
Catholic  books  should  not  be  printed  for  general  reading, 
on  account  of  the  manifest  obscenity  and  indecency  of 
the  language  of  the  quotations. 

For  the  Title,  “  Romanism  and  the  Republic,”  the 
author  is  indebted  to  an  impressive  article  from  the  pen 
of  M.  Leon  Bouland,  the  distinguished  ex-priest,  in  The 
Forum  of  July,  1888. 

Among  authorities,  I  have  depended  mostly  on  Roman 
Catholic  text-books  and  histories,  as  directly  consulted 
by  myself,  and  as  cited  by  reliable  authors.  Such  are 
F redet’s  “  Modern  History,”  Jenkins’  “  Judges  of  Faith,” 
Bouvier’s  “  Dissertatio  in  Sextum  Decalogi  Prseceptum,” 
Dens’  “Theology,”  J.  P.  Gury’s  “Moral  Theology,” 
and  the  “  Index  Expurgatorius,”  among  Roman  Catholic 
text-books. 

H.  C.  Lea’s  “Sacerdotal  Celibacy  ”  and  Lea’s  “  History 
of  the  Inquisition,”  Thompson’s  “  The  Papacy  and  the 
Civil  Power,”  Gladstone’s  “Vaticanism  and  the  Vatican 
Decrees,”  Mendham’s  “  Literary  Policy  of  the  Romish 
Church,”  Edgar’s  “  Variations  of  Popery,” — all  of  which 
are  especially  rich  in  quotations  from  Romish  authorities, 
—I  have  freely  quoted. 

I  have  found  help  also  in  the  works  of  distinguished  ex- 


Author's  Preface . 


•  •  • 
xm 

priests  and  converts  from  Rome  ;  including  DeSanctis,  on 
“The  Confessional,”  Lord  Richard  Montagu,  “The  Sower 
and  the  Virgin,”  Rev.  Charles  Chiniquy,  “Fifty  Years  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,”  and  “  The  Priest,  the  Woman  and 
the  Confessional,”  Rev.  James  A.  O’Connor,  Editor  of 
that  very  valuable  and  reliable  monthly,  The  Converted 
Catholic ,  Father  McGlynn’s  “  Sermons  and  Addresses,” 
Wm.  Hogan,  on  “  Popery,”  and  others. 

While  of  books  of  a  more  general  character,  I  have 
consulted,  among  others:  “The  History  of  the  Public 
School  Society  of  New  York,”  “Our  Country  ”  bj-  Dr. 
Josiah  Strong,  Barnum’s  “Romanism  As  It  Is,”  Beaudry’s 
“  Spiritual  Struggles  of  a  Roman  Catholic,”  Van  Dyke’s 
“  Popery  the  Documents  of  the  American  Evangelical 
Alliance,  and  the  Papers  of  Dexter  H.  Hawkins  ;  together 
with  several  lives  of  Loyola,  and  histories  of  the  Jesuits, 
from  both  Romish  and  Protestant  sources. 

To  have  filled  the  margins  or  appendix  with  hundreds 
of  references  to  these  volumes,  would  have  been  easy,  but 
this  seemed  superfluous. 

It  is  believed  that  the  facts  are  as  alleged  ;  and  #  while 
errors  of  statement  may  be  discovered,  there  are  no  alleg¬ 
ations  submitted  without  ample  testimony  in  their  favor. 
My  thanks  are  due  to  many  friends  who  have  kindly 
aided  me  with  books  and  facts. 

For  the  striking  and  comprehensive  Introduction,  the 
Author  is  indebted  to  a  master  of  all  the  facts  concerning 
Romanism,  Rev.  Leroy  M.  Vernon,  D.D.,  founder,  and 
for  nearly  eighteen  years,  until  1888,  superintendent  of 
the  Missions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Italy. 
For  most  of  these  years,  Dr.  Vernon  has  resided  in 
Rome,  under  the  very  shadow  of  the  Vatican.  There  and 
throughout  Italy  he  has  given  profound  study  to  Roman¬ 
ism  in  all  its  phases,  gathering  about  him  into  the  Church 


XIV 


Author's  Preface. 


of  God,  some  of  the  most  extraordinary  and  able  men  of 
young  Italy,  who,  under  his  guidance,  forsook,  for  con¬ 
science  sake,  the  Papacy  which  had  honored  them.  For 
weight  and  trustworthiness,  his  statements  are  absolutely 
authoritative. 

With  diffidence  as  to  form  and  style,  but  with  confi¬ 
dence  as  to  facts  and  inferences,  I  submit  to  a  larger 
public  this  incomplete  discussion,  as  a  contribution  to  the 
demands  of  a  great  conflict,  in  which  I  confidently  hope 
to  see  Romanism  destroyed,  the  Roman  Catholic  people 
saved,  the  American  Republic  more  firmly  established, 
and  the  Kingdom  of  God  triumphantly  exalted. 

I.  J.  LANSING. 


Worcester,  May  15,  1889. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface, . 3 

t  4  y  ,  t  w  .  * 

Author’s  Preface, .  11 

CHAPTER  I. 

Reasons  for  Considering  this  Question .  17 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Jesuits  and  their  Purpose . 39 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Pope  the  Enemy  of  Civil  and  Religious  Liberty . . .  61 

CHAPTER  IV. 


Romanism  Antagonistic  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Laws.  87 

CHAPTER  V. 

Romanism  Antagonistic  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Laws 

No.  II .  120 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Purpose  of  Romanism  to  Destroy  our  Public  Schools . .  147 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Purpose  of  Romanism  to  Destroy  our  Public  Schools : 


Their  Alleged  and  Actual  Reasons,  No.  II . 181 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Purpose  of  Romanism  to  Destroy  our  Public  Schools, 

No.  Ill .  219 


XVI 


Table  of  Contents 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Morality  which  Romanism  would  Teach  American 

Youth .  253 


CHAPTER  X. 

Shall  Romanism  Teach  a  Pagan  Morality  to  American 


Youth? . .  286 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Shall  Romanism  Teach  a  Pagan  Morality  to  American 

Youth?  No.  II . .  317 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Further  Aspects  of  Parochial  Schools . . . . . . . . .  345 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  Romish  Confessional :  What  it  Is,  and  What  it  Does.  •  •  374 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Romish  Confessional :  What  it  Is,  and  What  it  Does, 


Xo.  II . 407 

Concluding  Xote .  435- 


ROMANISM  AND  THE  REPUBLIC. 


Sermon  JL 

REASONS  FOR  CONSIDERING  THE  RELATION  OF 
ROMANISM  TO  THE  REPUBLIC. 


“  Again  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  me,  saying:  Son  of 
man,  speak  to  the  children  of  thy  people,  and  say  unto  them, 
When  I  bring  the  sword  upon  a  laud,  if  the  people  of  the  laud 
take  a  man  of  their  coasts,  and  set  h im  for  their  watchman;  If 
wlieu  he  seeth  the  sword  come  upon  the  land,  he  blow  the  trum¬ 
pet  and  warn  the  people;  Then  whosoever  lieareth  the  sound  of 
the  trumpet  and  taketh  not  warning,  if  the  sword  come  and  take 
him  away,  his  blood  shall  be  upon  his  own  head.  He  heard  the 
sound  of  the  trumpet  and  took  not  warning,  his  blood  shall  be 
upon  him.  But  he  that  taketh  waruiug  shall  deliver  his  soul. 
But  if  the  watchman  see  the  sword  come,  and  blow  not  the  trum¬ 
pet,  and  the  people  be  hot  warned;  If  the  sword  come,  and  take 
any  person  from  among  them,  he  is  taken  away  in  his  iniquity: 
but  his  blood  will  I  require  at  the  watchman’s  hand.” — Ezekiel 
33:  1-G. 

The  picture  in  this  text  is  better  understood  in 
Eastern  lands  than  it  can  be  in  this  country. 
Many  cities  there  are  located  on  lofty  heights, 
from  which  a  wide  survey  can  be  made  of  the 
surrounding  country.  They  are  so  located  for 
purposes  of  defence  ;  for  where  enemies  are  likely 
to  come  in  like  a  Hood,  and  wandering  hordes 
to  make  sudden  incursions,  such  situations  are 
highly  favorable  to  safety.  The  watchman,  placed 
on  the  walls,  scans  the  country  far  and  wide, 
and  marks  every  si£>n  which  would  surest  the 


18 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


presence  of  a  coming  foe.  A  cloud  of  smoke  in  the 
distance,  rolling  up  from  burning  villages,  attracts 
his  watchful  eye.  The  dust  which  rises  above  the 
plain,  marking  the  march  of  an  advancing  host,  is  to 
him  an  occasion  for  alarm.  The  glint  of  the  sun- 
shine  on  distant,  moving  weapons,  leads  him  to  call 
the  defenders  to  their  posts,  and  the  throng  of  terri¬ 
fied  villagers,  fleeing  from  their  homes  to  find  pro¬ 
tection  under  the  walls  of  the  town,  alike  attests  the 
need  of  watchfulness,  and  confirms  and  justifies  his 
warning. 

O 

He  does  not  wait  until  the  foemen  are  thundering 
at  the  gates,  before  he  announces  to  the  garrison  the 
danger  that  threatens.  Should  he  do  so,  he  might 
justly  be  judged  a  traitor,  in  the  pay  of  the  enemy. 

So,  when  God’s  watchman,  guarding  the  dearest 
interests  of  church  and  state,  sees  rising  from  other 
lands  the  clouds  of  desolation  which  betoken  the  ruin 
wrought  by  tyranny ;  when  he  marks  the  steady 
aggression  of  the  enemies  of  truth  and  man  ;  hears 
their  threatenings  and  sees  their  weapons  ;  when  he 
observes  the  fleeing  millions  who,  running  away  from 
oppression,  seek  in  our  freer  government  a  refuge 
from  their  tyrants,  he  cannot  wait  until  the  foot  of 
the  foeman  is  on  the  threshold  of  our  gates,  his  hand 
on  our  throats,  and  his  decrees  proclaimed  in  our 
market-places,  before  he  sounds  the  alarm. 

It  is  his  duty  to  give  the  warning  of  approaching 
danger  seen  afar,  and  thus  to  protect  the  liberties 
over  which  he  watches,  rather  than  delay  to  sound 
his  call  to  stand  on  guard,  until  these  priceless 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


19 


treasures  are  forever  lost.  Such  I  conceive  to  be 
the  duty  of  the  Christian  minister  who  observes  the 
doings  of  the  Romish  church  in  other  lands,  the 
principles  which  have  moved  it,  the  methods  which 
it  has  pursued,  and  the  threats,  already  taking  form,, 
which  it  is  making  against  the  Protestant  Christianity 
and  the  free  government  of  the  United  States  of 
America.  Our  responsibility  is  not  merely  to  the 
present  hour,  but  to  coming  ages  and  future  times, — 
to  those  generations  yet  to  be,  who  must  now  be 
protected  in  our  persons,  and  defended  by  our 
lidelity.  In  warning  you  of  the  spirit  and  aggres¬ 
sions  of  Romanism,  I  naturally  seek  to  justify  my 
purpose  by  reasons  which  I  submit  to  your  calm  con¬ 
sideration  and  enlightened  judgment. 

Why  do  I  consider  this  subject  ?  and  why  do  I  deem 
it  my  duty  to  God  and  to  man,  to  the  present  and  to 
the  future,  to  bring  this  matter  to  the  attention  of 
this  congregation  and  community? 

1.  Among  the  negative  reasons  why  I  consider 
Romanism  and  the  Republic  the  first  is  this  :  I  do 
not  do  it  to  incite  religious  animosity.  The  various 
branches  of  the  Christian  Church  should  cultivate 
amity,  peace  and  brotherhood.  We  cannot  too 
earnestly  deprecate  the  spirit  which  awakens  needless 
religious  contention  against  bodies  which  hold  approx¬ 
imately  the  common  faith. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  shall  religion  be  a 
cloak  for  confessed  evils,  forbidding  us  to  take 
account  of  them  because  they  assume  a  religious 
covering  ?  Under  the  pretence  of  religion,  the 


20 


liomanism  and  the  Republic. 


grossest  crimes  have  been  committed  against  the 

o  o 

state,  against  society,  and  against  the  faith.  It 
ought  not  to  shelter  the  immoralities  of  Mormonism, 
that  Mormonism  is  defined  as  a  system  of  religious 
belief.  Is  polygamy  any  more  moral  because  it 
affects  to  be  a  religious  ordinance  and  duty  ?  By  no 
means.  Romanism  can  claim  for  its  policy  no  ex¬ 
emption  from  attention  or  censure  because  it  is  a 
religion,  any  more  than  can  any  other  ism. 

If  it  is  true  that  under  the  guise  of  the  religion  of 
Romanism  a  great  conspiracy  against  liberty  and 
truth  is  sheltered,  it  is  simply  fidelity  to  the  highest 
obligations,  and  not  religious  animosity,  that  leads  us 
to  tear  away  the  veil  and  show  the  designs  which 
threaten  our  country’s  welfare  and  the  progress  of 
mankind. 

2.  Neither  do  I  consider  this  subject  in  order  to 
excite  religious  prejudice  against  any  church  or  class 
of  citizens.  Fraternity,  peace,  goodwill,  and  a  dis¬ 
position  to  abide  by  rules  of  fairness,  should  animate 
all  our  relations  toward  our  fellow-men,  either  in  tin4 
church  or  state.  But  prejudice  is  the  offspring  of 
thoughtlessness  and  ignorance.  When  truth  de¬ 
mands  that  we  should  take  a  strongly  antagonistic 
attitude  toward  any  evil,  that  attitude  cannot  be 
spoken  of  as  the  result  of  prejudice.  I  purpose 
rather  to  diminish  prejudice  by  increasing  intelli¬ 
gence;  I  would  throw  light  on  the  methods  of  the 
Romish  church,  on  its  history  and  its  intentions ;  I 
would  cause  those  who  are  now  ignorantly  preju¬ 
diced  to  become  intelligently  opposed  ;  and  so  would 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


21 


dissipate,  rather  than  create,  intolerant  and  ignorant 
antagonism. 

O 

3.  Certainly,  it  is  far  from  my  intention,  in  this 
discussion,  to  arouse  or  increase  religious  bigotry — 
that  spirit  which  assumes  that  none  are  Christians 
except  ourselves,  which  regards  all  others  as  in  the 
wrong,  which  cannot  see  or  tolerate  anything  out¬ 
side  of  the  narrow  line  of  its  own  denomination.  Of 
bigotry  there  is  already  too  much,  and  I  would  that 
it  might  diminish  till  there  were  none  remaining. 
But  by  this  I  do  not  mean  to  suggest  that  all  creeds 
and  opinions  are  equally  true,  nor  to  debar  us  from 
the  definition  and  defence  of  our  principles.  Nor 
are  dangerous  ideas  and  practices  in  the  province  of 
religion  to  be  exempt  from  examination,  any  more 
than  dangerous  ideas  in  morals  or  in  politics.  Big¬ 
otry  may  be  increased  by  superstition,  and  often  has 
been  fostered  by  forbidding  free  discussion  ;  but  the 
diffusion  of  information  on  matters  of  common  con¬ 
cern,  in  a  fair  spirit  and  by  the  citation  of  undoubted 
authorities,  cannot  nurse  bigotry. 

4.  Still  less  do  I  discuss  the  subject  of  Romanism 
and  the  Republic  in  order  to  awaken  controversy 
for  the  sake  of  mere  controversy.  We  are  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures  to  “  follow  peace  with  all  men 
and  yet  are  bidden  to  “  contend  earnestly  for  the 
faith  that  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints.”  There 
are  worse  evils  than  controversy,  much  as  acrimoni¬ 
ous  disputation  is  to  be  deprecated.  The  nation  that 
is  not  ready  to  contend  for  its  liberties  hardly  de¬ 
serves  them,  and  will  surely  lose  them.  The  church 


22 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


which  values  truth  so  lightly  that  it  will  not  in  de¬ 
fence  of  the  same  put  forth  the  utmost  argument  and 
persuasion,  creating  enlightenment  by  the  champion¬ 
ship  of  truth  and  the  challenging  of  error,  will  soon 
cease  to  be  respected,  and  will  presently  cease  to  res¬ 
pect  itself.  While,  therefore,  I  neither  fear  nor  court 
controversy,  and  certainly  do  not  desire  to  awaken 
it  for  its  own  sake,  I  would  gladly  welcome  it  in  be¬ 
half  of  truth,  if  thereby  the  clouds  might  be  dissipated 
and  the  dangers  averted  which  hang  over  and  threaten 
our  beloved  country.  And  I  may  add,  that  this  was 
the  spirit  of  early  Christianity  in  the  primitive 
church.  The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Colos- 
sians  and  to  the  Corinthians,  are  controversial  epis¬ 
tles,  defending  the  Gospel,  protecting  the  church, 
challenging  false  teachers,  and  assailing  immoral 
and  ungodly  doctrine.  The  spirit  of  biblical 
controversy  is  the  spirit  which  we  would  cultivate, 
and  the  endeavor  we  make  is  made  with  the  same 
intent.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  dispute  the  genuine 
piety  and  the  deep  devotion  of  many  of  the  adher¬ 
ents  of  the  church  of  Rome.  I  shall  not  assume  that 
its  members  at  large,  and  its  priests  in  general, 
knowingly  hold  and  propagate  error.  But  because  it 
demands  universal  and  absolute  allegiance,  I  am 
bound  to  examine  the  basis  of  its  claims,  before  I 
accept  or  reject  them.  You  and  I  are  willing  that 
Presbyterians  shall  be  Presbyterians,  that  Method¬ 
ists  shall  be  Methodists,  that  Episcopalians  shall  be 
Episcopalians,  and  so  on  of  all  Christians  whose  faith 
is  a  biblical  faith.  And  they  are  equally  willing  that 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


23 


we  shall  be  Con<n*egationalists.  But  Rome  recog- 

o  o  o 

nizes  only  heresy  in  every  form  of  religion  but  its 
own  ;  demands  universal  submission  ;  endeavors  to 
incite  the  fiercest  hatred  against  all  other  forms  of 
belief,  and  strives  to  overpower  and  destroy,  by  all 
her  vast  and  mighty  machinery,  and  by  the  anathe¬ 
mas  of  the  pope,  the  persecution  of  the  civil  power, 
and  the  horrors  of  the  Inquisition,  which  they  still 
justify,  if  they  cannot  practice. 

Before  proceeding  further,  I  desire  to  answer  a 
question  that  may  arise  in  your  minds,  why  I  speak 
on  Romanism  and  the  Republic,  instead  of  upon 
Catholicism  and  the  Republic.  The  reason  is  very 
clear,  and  one  that  should  ever  be  kept  in  mind.  I 
say  Romanism,  instead  of  Catholicism,  because  the 
Romish  church  is  not  the  Catholic  church.  What 
is  the  Catholic  church?  The  meaning  of  the  term 
determines.  Catholic  means  general,  universal,  the 
one  ath embracing  church.  It  includes  all  who  hold 
to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity  and  truth. 
Every  Christian  on  the  face  of  the  earth  belongs  to 
the  Catholic  church  ;  but,  thank  God  !  not  to  the 
Romish  church.  You  are  Catholics  because  you 
are  Christians.  The  devoted  worshipper  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  in  any  denomination  is  a  Catholic,  because  a 
Christian.  But  Rome  is  not  the  universal  church ; 
Romanism  is  the  Latin  church,  a  branch  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  we  may  allow,  but  not  the  whole, 
as  she  falsely  and  impudently  claims.  To  the  arro¬ 
gance  of  that  claim,  it  is  extremely  foolish  and  weak 
for  us  to  bow. 


24 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


I  shall  never  call  them  Catholic,  only  as  I  would 
say  Methodist  Catholic,  Congregational  Catholic, 
because  they  are  not  Catholics,  and  I  advise  you  to 
more  carefully  deline  the  true  Catholic  idea,  and  to 
call  Romanism  by  its  right  name. 

Secondly  —  I  call  them  Romanists  because  they  are 
the  Roman  church.  Its  headship  is  at  Rome  ;  the 
ruler  whom  it  regards  as  infill lible,  who  presides 
over  and  directs  it  with  absolute  authority,  is  an 
Italian  by  residence,  a  Roman,  and  a  foreigner. 
And  not  merely  is  its  head  a  Roman,  but,  moreover, 
the  church  is  essentially  Italian,  and  has  been  for 
centuries,  in  the  preponderance  of  governing  ideas,  in 
the  policy  which  shapes  its  course,  in  the  diplomacy 
of  its  management.  Sometimes,  and  justly,  it  is 
called  Ultra  montane,  which,  centuries  ago  meant,  as 
it  now  means,  a  church  governed  by  priests  who  find 
their  homes  south  of  the  Alps.  We  need  only  to 
appeal  to  the  history  of  the  Romish  church,  to 
demonstrate  the  entire  suitability  of  defining  it  as 
Romanism  in  its  relation  to  the  Republic,  and  its 
relation  to  the  world  ;  though  the  time  is  coming 
when  to  keep  that  name  even,  modern,  regenerated 
Rome,  will  demand  that  it  become  a  regenerated 
church. 

Having  thus  cleared  the  way,  and  negatively 
defined  my  purpose,  having  also  defined  distinctly 
the  Romish  church  as  non-Catholic,  I  now  desire 
to  give  you  positive  and  direct  reasons  why  I  take 
up  this  discussion,  and  as  a  watchman  who  is 
responsible  to  God,  to  the  church,  to  the  Republic 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


*  25 


and  to  the  world,  ask  your  attention  to  the  threaten¬ 
ing  attitude  and  dangerous  assumptions  of  Romanism 
in  our  country.  l.Why  do  I  not  take  up  and  con¬ 
sider  the  relation  of  other  churches  to  the  Republic? 

JL 

That  would  be  appropriate,  if  there  were  anything  in 
their  relation  startling,  threatening,  or  especially 
suggestive;  but  no  such  fact  in  their  history  exists. 
The  attitude  of  the  Romish  church  toward  the 
Republic  is  totally  different  from  that  of  any  other 
church.  Suppose  the  inquiry  were  raised,  What  is 
the  attitude  of  the  Baptist  church  toward  the  Repub¬ 
lic?  The  instant  and  universal  answer  from  all 
Christian  denominations  would  be,  The  Baptist 
church  is  an  essential  and  thoroughly  loyal  portion 
of  the  nation.  If  the  question  were  raised,  What  is 
the  attitude  of  Methodism  toward  the  Republic?  we 
should  at  once  reply,  that  Methodism  was  a  constitu¬ 
ent  and  vital  part  of  the  life  of  the  Republic,  loyal  to 
the  core  to  the  principles  of  American  liberty. 

But  we  consider  Romanism  in  its  relation  to  the 
Republic,  rather  than  any  of  the  other  churches, 
because  its  attitude  is  well  known  to  be  questionable, 
doubtful,  and,  as  we  shall  show,  hostile. 

2.  It  acknowledges  as  its  head  a  ruler  who  claims 
the  right  to  dictate  to  all  rulers  ;  who  insists  on  his 
supremacy  over  and  above  all  civil  powers,  execu¬ 
tive  and  legislative  ;  and  who  holds  this  theory  of 
his  own  powers,  not  as  a  theory  merely,  but  who  for 
centuries  has  carried  it  out  in  practice,  to  the  utmost 
limits  of  his  ability.  Every  Roman  Catholic  digni¬ 
tary,  from  the  Pope  down  to  the  Bishop,  by  creed 


26  * 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


and  by  oath,  recognizes  the  Pope  with  an  allegiance 
superior  to  that  which  he  pays  to  any  other  power. 
And  if  the  Romish  power  is  not  at  present  in  avowed 
hostility,  in  open  antagonism  to  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  it  is  only  because  it  chooses  at 
present  to  be  pacific  ;  while  really,  as  I  shall  show 
hereafter,  holding  an  attitude  of  unqualified  suprem¬ 
acy  over  us  in  its  claims  and  in  its  purposes. 

I  have  already  said  that  Rome  claims  the  right  to 
control  civil  governments  as  no  other  church  does. 
This  claim  of  the  Papacy  I  shall  hereafter  define  in 
its  own  words.  Recent  and  remarkable  illustrations 
of  this  claim,  in  actual  practice,  are  now  before  your 
minds.  It  is  within  the  past  year  that,  under  the 
sanction  of  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy,  members  of 
the  English  Parliament  in  this  city  have  been  hon¬ 
ored  with  processions  and  public  meetings,  while 
they  expatiated  to  the  people  on  the  wrongs  and 
woes  of  Ireland,  and  the  desire  of  the  people  for 
Home  Rule,  and  explained  the  plans  by  which  they 
hoped  to  achieve  it.  Vast  sums  of  money  have  been 
collected  to  further  their  designs,  and  the  plans  of 
campaign  on  which  they  were  working,  well-known 
throughout  all  the  land,  received  general  and  enthu¬ 
siastic  approval.  But  lo  !  a  few  weeks  since,  under 
the  manipulations  of  diplomatists  at  Rome,  there  has 
issued  from  the  Vatican  a  rescript,  as  it  is  called,  of 
Leo  XIII,  condemning  the  action  of  the  clergv,  the 
agitator,  the  statesman  and  members  of  parliament, 
and  forbidding  them  to  further  the  civil  policy  which 
they  have  heretofore  pursued  for  the  emancipation  of 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


27 


Ireland  from  English  rule.  What  is  the  result?  A 
murmur  of  resistance  and  disapprobation  from  a  few 
bishops  and  archbishops  ;  a  fiery  protest  from  a  few 
leading  agitators  :  and  behold  !  immediately  follow¬ 
ing,  almost  absolute  and  universal  submission  !  Arch¬ 
bishops,  bishops,  and  clergy,  statesmen,  orators,  agi¬ 
tators,  all,  under  the  threat  of  Roman  displeasure, 
quietly  submit  to  the  dictation  of  the  Pope.  Now 
the  question  is  not  whether  their  methods  of  civil 
procedure  were  right;  or  whether  the  Pope,  in  cen¬ 
suring  them,  is  on  the  right  side  of  this  political  con¬ 
troversy.  The  real  question  is  simply  this:  Has  the 
Pope  the  right,  has  he  the  power  to  dictate  to  Roman 
Catholics  in  Ireland  and  America  and  throughout 
the  world,  what  shall  be  their  political  methods,  and 
how  they  shall  plan  and  execute  their  political  cam¬ 
paigns?  I  feel  called  upon  at  this  juncture,  in  the 
name  of  liberty  and  manhood,  to  protest  in  favor  of 
the  protection  of  Romanists  against  the  interference 
and  domination  of  the  Pope. 

A  farther  illustration,  in  a  more  individual 
case  and  in  the  realm  of  personal  opinion,  of 
the  practical  interference  of  the  Papacy  in  the  civil 
allegiance  of  its  subjects,  is  had  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
McGlynn.  Months  ago,  on  the  platform  of  a  public 
meeting,  I  saw  this  distinguished  priest  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church.  Modest  and  affable  in  his 
bearing,  eloquent  in  his  words,  and  vigorous  and  free 
in  his  thoughts,  he  seemed  to  me  at  the  time  to  be  a 
representative  of  the  best  element  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  church.  Subsequent  to  that  time,  acting 


28  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

within  his  undoubted  rights  as  a  citizen,  guaranteed 
to  him  by  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  he  chose  to 
further  certain  political  ideas  which  seemed  to  him  in 
harmony  with  sound  principle.  Forthwith,  this  citi¬ 
zen  of  America  is  cited  to  appear  in  Rome  to  answer 
for  his  political  opinions.  He  dreads  to  go,  know¬ 
ing  too  well  the  means  which  the  mother-church 
employs  to  secure  the  subordination  of  such  of  her 
sons  as  dare  to  think  for  themselves.  Declining  to 
go,  and  only  affirming  his  rights  as  a  free  Ameri¬ 
can  citizen,  he  is  put  under  the  ban  of  his  superiors 
and  deprived  of  the  church  for  which  he  had  labored 
and  sacrificed  so  heroically,  and  to-day  is  an  outcast 
priest,  solely  and  only  because  he  chose  to  adhere 
to  his  own  private  judgment  in  matters  secular  and 
political.  If  the  Romish  church,  by  rescript,  can 
destroy  the  political  plans  of  Irish  leaders,  if  by  cen¬ 
sure  it  can  dictate  political  views  to  one  of  its  dis¬ 
tinguished  priests  in  America,  obviously,  it  both 
claims  and  exercises  the  right  to  the  same  jurisdic¬ 
tion  in  every  country  and  in  every  case. 

fi.  The  third  reason  why  I  consider  the  relations 
of  Romanism  and  the  Republic  is,  that  Romanism 
hates  and  fiercely  attacks  institutions  especially  dear 
to  us  in  this  country,  and  which  have  been  associ¬ 
ated  with  all  its  prosperity  from  the  beginning  of  our 
history.  Our  fathers  believed  that  public  education 
was  essential  to  sound  political  and  social  morality  ; 
and  alongside  the  church,  and  as  its  offspring,  they 
planted  the  public  school.  This  system  of  public 
education  has  made,  of  those  who  come  under  its 


Ltomanism  and  the  Republic. 


29 


benign  influence,  the  most  enlightened  citizens  of  the 
most  enlightened  state  in  the  world  ;  and  it  may  be 
truly  said,  that  the  results  of  public  education  in 
the  United  States  furnish  one  of  the  most  striking 

O 


illustrations  of  the  wisdom  of  the  founders  of  our 
government.  But  Rome  is  the  sworn  foe  of  our 
public  schools.  The  most  violent  language  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  them  is  used,  under  the  sanction  of  her  pre¬ 
lates,  by  her  writers,  secular  and  clerical.  Not  only 
in  America,  but  in  Ireland,  where  the  British  gov¬ 
ernment  has  tried  to  diffuse  the  benefits  of  public 
education,  they  exhibit  the  same  hostility. 

The  national  schools  of  Ireland,  carefully  abstaining 
from  giving  religious  instruction,  but  affording  facili- 
ties  for  such  instruction  at  designated  hours,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  preference  of  the  parents,  have  been  met 
by  the  fiercest  antagonism  on  the  part  of  the  Roman 
power. 

Great  was  my  surprise,  when  a  distinguished  and 
highly  educated  Roman  Catholic  assured  me  that,  in 
his  opinion,  it  were  better  that  the  children  of  Ire¬ 
land  should  grow  up  in  densest  ignorance,  rather 
than  that  they  should  attempt  to  get  their  education 
in  the  national  schools.  The  determined  efforts  of 
Rome  to  undermine  our  public  school  system  are 
already  bearing  apparent  fruit.  Undertaking  to 
falsify  history,  in  order  to  build  up  ecclesiastic! sm,  but 
recently  they  have  demanded  and  have  secured  the 
explusion  of  certain  histories  from  the  public  schools 
of  Boston,  and  the  dismissal  of  a  teacher  who  dared 
to  teach  something  contrary  to  their  supremacy  and 


30 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


to  their  preferences.  In  a  Connecticut  city,  not 
long  since,  one  of  the  young  lady  teachers  in  the 
High  School,  having,  in  a  historical  exercise,  stated 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  church  just  prior  to  the 
Reformation  sold  indulgences,  which  encouraged  the 
people  to  commit  sin,  was  only  able  to  retain  her 
place  as  teacher  in  the  school  by  signing  a  retraction 
or  apology  prepared  by  a  Roman  Catholic  priest ! 

Has  it  comes  to  this,  that  the  Romish  church  shall 
dictate  that  only  such  books  shall  be  studied  in  our 
public  schools  as  comport  with  her  opinion  of  her¬ 
self,  and  her  desire  to  establish  a  universal  tyranny? 
And  are  we,  the  offspring  of  the  English  Reformers, 
to  bend  the  knee  and  yield?  God  forbid  ! 

Remember,  freemen,  and  Protestants  of  America, 
that  where  Rome  has  had  the  privilege  of  educating 
the  people,  more  illiteracy  prevails,  in  proportion  to 
the  population,  than  in  any  other  European  state. 
The  Roman  states,  Italy  and  Spain,  in  their  abject¬ 
ness  and  almost  universal  ignorance,  bear  witness  to 
this  fact.  Liberty  of  conscience  and  freedom  of  the 
press,  dear  and  precious  privileges  of  American  free¬ 
men,  have  been  pronounced  by  the  highest  author¬ 
ity  of  the  Romish  church,  a  pest  and  a  delirium,  and 
the  Romish  church,  when  the  Pope  says  that,  is  bound 
to  believe  it,  as  if  it  were  the  very  word  of  God. 
Surely,  if  these  priceless  privileges  of  conscience  and 
discussion  are  of  right  free,  we  cannot  too  soon  start 
up  in  resistance  to  the  power  which  denies  that 
freedom,  and  would  put  us  in  bondage  to  the  blas¬ 
phemous  assumptions  of  mediaeval  tyranny. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


31 


4.  My  fourth  reason  for  considering  Romanism  in 
its  relation  to  the  Republic  is,  that  in  the  Romish 
Church  is  so  large  a  portion  of  the  criminal  and  dan¬ 
gerous  classes.  A  distinguished  ex-priest,  Leon 
Bouland,  in  the  July  number  of  the  Forum,  calls  our 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
probably  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  criminals  are 
members  and  adherents  to  the  Romish  Catholic 
Church.  And  yet  some  of  you,  being  kindly  disposed, 
will  say  :  Does  not  the  Romish  Church  exercise  a  re¬ 
straining  influence  over  these  dangerous  classes,  and, 
is  not  that  influence  beneficial  in  helping  the  commu¬ 
nity  to  keep  such  people  in  subjection  ?  It  may  be 
true,  we  will  not  deny  it,  that  the  Romish  Church  has 
some  power  of  restraint  over  these  dangerous  classes  ; 
but  will  you  not  also  bear  in  mind  that  the  attitude  of 
the  Romish  Church  toward  these  people  makes  it 
almost  impossible  for  Protestants  to  get  near  them,  in 
order  to  teach  them  morality  and  improve  their  con¬ 
dition?  She  takes  the  whole  responsibility  for  them. 
And  mark  this  :  these  people  who  constitute  our  dan¬ 
gerous  and  criminal  classes  in  America,  are  the 
offspring  of  those  communities  where  Romanism  for 
centuries  has  had  an  absolute  sway.  They  come 
from  countries  where  this  church  has  dominated  their 
ancestors  for  many  generations  with  unresisted 
authority.  They  are,  to  that  degree,  the  product  of 
Romanism.  Moreover,  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
the  church  which  makes  and  which  controls  so  large 
a  proportion  of  the  desperate  people  of  society,  holds 
over  them  such  an  absolute  sway  from  superstition* 


32 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


the  dread  of  exeommunication,  and  from  prejudice, 
that  she  can.  handle  them  at  her  Avill,  and  by  that 
means  make  them  her  agents  and  instruments  for 
whatever  work  she  chooses  to  set  them  about.  I  have 
not  said  that  the  Romish  Church  desires  or  will 
launch  this  terrific  enginery  against  the  life  of  the 
nation.  The  probability  of  that  you  shall  determine 
later,  when  we  have  more  carefully  studied  its  prin¬ 
ciples.  But  I  do  say,  that  this  army  of  the  immoral, 
the  dangerous  and  the  criminal,  is  so  abjectly  under 
the  power  of  Rome,  and  so  sworn  to  obedience  to  the 
Pope,  that  if  she  shall  choose  to  direct  them  in  any 
course,  they,  on  their  part,  are  likely  to  obey.  Will 
she  so  choose  ? 

5.  In  answer,  in  the  fifth  place,  I  beg  you  to 
remember,  that  already  Rome  acts  in  this  country  as 
a  political  unit.  These  dangerous  elements,  with 
all  other  elements  of  the  Papal  power,  in  their  civil 
capacity,  are  wielded  by  the  church  as  an  adjunct  of 
a  single  political  party.  You  and  I  allow  the  right 
of  every  man  to  select  his  political  party,  and  to  vote 
as  he  pleases;  but  is  it  not  a  singular  fact,  that  the 
Romish  Church  alone,  of  all  the  churches,  is  politi¬ 
cally  solid?  The  other  great  political  party  in  this 
country  has  tried  to  secure  the  allegiance  of  a  por¬ 
tion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  voters,  but  has  tried 
with  indifferent  and  ill  success.  They  who  manipu¬ 
late  the  Romish  vote  do  not  intend  to  have  it 
divided.  They  care  nothing  for  the  party  with 
which  it  acts,  nothing  for  the  opposite  party,  nothing 
for  America,  save  as  it  can  be  made  the  tool  of  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


33 

Papacy  ;  and  in  directing  this  vast  body  of  voters,  do 
not  forget  that  they  handle  them  solely  and  only  in 
the  interest  of  Jesuitism,  and  of  the  purpose  of  the 
Homan  Catholic  hierarchy.  The  Romanists  of 
America  will  obey  the  orders  that  come  from  Rome  in 
every  political  action,  precisely  as  the  Romanists  of 
Ireland  and  America  have  obeyed  the  Papal  rescript 
recently  issued.  At  least,  precedent  awakens  our 
fear  that  such  will  be  their  course.  This  dangerous 
element,  wielded  as  a  political  power,  already  has 
produced  most  startling  conditions  of  municipal  gov¬ 
ernment  in  most  of  the  great  cities.  They  either 
hold  the  balance  of  power,  or  already  constitute  the 
the  majority,  in  many  city  governments  ;  and  they 
work  with  an  adroitness  and  statesmanship  whose 
purpose  is  as  dangerous  as  its  patience  is  marvelous. 

6.  The  sixth  reason  why  I  discuss  this  subject  is, 
that  already  the  dangers  which  I  have  alleged  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  reasons,  are  very  obviously  at  hand. 

The  power  of  the  Papacy  as  a  political  force  is 
already  seen  in  our  cities,  not  merely  in  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  municipality,  nor  in  the  blows  which  they 
are  dealing  at  the  public  schools  ;  but  in  those  open 
violations  of  the  constitution  of  the  several  states  and 
of  the  United  States,  which  they  have  extorted  from 
time-serving  legislators,  and  from  trembling  and  sub- 
servient  politicians.  The  constitutions  of  most  of 
our  states  forbid  the  appropriation  on  the  part  of 
the  state  to  any  sect  of  public  moneys  for  its  emol¬ 
ument  or  use.  No  religious  society  can  justly 
receive,  under  the  constitution,  the  public  funds  for 


34 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


its  up-building  and  the  propagation  of  its  ideas.  But 
this  wholesome  and  necessary  law  has  been  so  evaded, 
that  in  the  city  of  New  York  the  Homan  Catholic 
Church  has  grasped  millions  of  the  public  money. 
Its  vast  cathedral  property,  now  occupied  by  one  of 
the  most  magnificent  churches  in  America,  was 
obtained  for  a  mere  song;  and  it  had  gained,  as  I 
shall  hereafter  show  in  detail,  for  specifically  Roman- 
istic  institutions,  prior  to  1870,  millions  of  dollars 
from  the  public  treasury.  Already,  wise  and  care¬ 
ful  publicists  have  told  us  that  we  might  look  for  the 
time  when  Roman  Catholics  will  demand  a  division  of 
the  school  fund,  so  that  a  part  of  it  may  be  appro¬ 
priated  for  the  support  of  their  parochial  schools,  now 
rapidly  being  founded  throughout  the  entire  country 
under  express  orders  from  Rome.  Do  you  smile  at 
this  fear?  Do  you  say,  It  is  impossible  that  the  time 
should  ever  come  when  the  constitution  and  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  states  of  the  American  Union  should 
ever  be  so  violated?  But  already  the  attempt  has 
been  made  in  our  own  Commonwealth.  And,  mark 
my  words  !  the  time  is  sure  to  come,  and  that  ere 
long,  when  Romanism  will  have  the  public  school 
moneys  of  our  commonwealths  divided,  and  a  large 
share  appropriated,  contrary  to  the  law  and  to  the 
constitution,  to  their  denominational  institutions, 
unless  freemen  arouse  and  protect  the  treasuries  on 
which  they  already  have  begun  to  make  attacks. 

I  will  give  you  two  more  reasons  why  I  consider 
it  necessary,  as  a  conscientious  watchman  and 
defender  of  the  liberties  of  the  church  and  of  the 
country,  to  consider  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  35 

7.  My  seventh  reason  is,  that  the  leaders  of  the 
church,  a  celibate  priesthood  and  without  family  ties, 
acknowledge  an  allegiance  to  a  foreign  ruler  supe¬ 
rior  to  the  United  States  ;  and  are  ready  at  his  com¬ 
mand  to  abjure  all  other  fealty.  We  cannot  over¬ 
look  the  peculiarity  of  the  Roman  Catholic  priest¬ 
hood.  It  tends,  contrary  to  nature  and  the  law 
of  God,  to  debase  social  morality.  When  the  iron 
hand  of  the  Papacy  struck  down  the  home  of  the 
priest  by  forbidding  the  priests  to  marry,  it  was  that 
she  might  secure  their  more  absolute  allegiance  to 
the  church.  Without  domestic  ties  or  obligations, 
they  look  for  their  advancement  and  joys  solely  to 
the  Papal  power.  Against  the  hardships  of  this 
unnatural  edict  there  have  been  many  protests, 
amounting  almost  to  rebellion,  within  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  Again  and  again,  consequent 
upon  observation  of  the  damaging  effects  of  enforced 
celibacy  upon  the  morality  of  the  church  and  of  the 
priesthood,  have  its  more  enlightened  members 
prayed  and  petitioned  that  this  heavy  burden  might 
be  taken  from  them,  but  up  to  this  hour  have  pro¬ 
tested  in  vain.  We  cannot  appeal  to  history  with¬ 
out  being  most  certain  that  a  celibate  priesthood, 
as  a  class,  has  never  held  to  high  morality.  And 
when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  evils  of  this  celibacy 
in  its  relation  to  the  confessional  —  when  we  survey, 
from  our  standpoint  of  abundant  though  most  pain¬ 
ful  revelations,  the  relation  which  these  wifeless  and 
childless  men  bear  to  society  —  you  will  be  forced  to 
acknowledge  that  they  are  made,  by  their  very  po- 


36 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


sition  and  its  demands,  a  constant  menace  to  society 
in  its  highest  and  dearest  interests  ;  as  also,  to  a 
remarkable  degree,  by  their  moral  relations,  the  more 
subservient  tools  of  the  Papal  power. 

8.  The  tinal  reason  which  I  present  as  demanding  this 
discussion,  is  that  the  wisest  statesmen  see  in 
Romanism  and  its  claim,  a  source  of  great  national 
peril.  I  can  quote  at  this  time  only  two  or  three  of 
them.  That  distinguished  son  of  France,  himself  a 
member  of  the  Gallican  Catholic  church,  who  gave 
more  to  our  country  during  the  Revolution  than  any 
other  foreigner,  who  assisted  in  laying  the  foundation 
of  our  liberties,  and  who  is  honored  wherever  the 
American  Republic  is  known,  the  Marquis  de  la 
Fayette,  said,  long  ago:  “If  the  liberties  of  the 
American  people  are  ever  destroyed,  it  will  be  by  the 
hands  of  the  Roman  clergy.”  This  saying,  uttered 
when  the  Roman  church  was  weak  and  small  in 
America,  and  when  it  seemed  to  threaten  no  disaster, 
is  all  the  more  significant  from  the  wide  knowledge 
and  careful  observation  of  the  statesman  who  uttered 
it.  He  had  seen  the  power  of  Romanism  as  it  had 
operated  against  the  liberties  of  France  ;  he  knew  the 
strength  of  the  hand  that  controlled  the  priests  and 
the  people  ;  and  observing  the  ruinous  consequences 
of  Papal  absolutism,  and  the  despotic  way  of  the 
Roman  Curia  in  other  lands,  he  anticipated  that  a 
country  so  fair  as  this,  and  destined  to  so  great 
development,  would  become  the  chosen  nation  for  the 
assault  of  these  hateful  powers  that  had  beaten  back 
progress  in  the  Old  World.  The  most  eminent 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


37 


English  statesman  of  our  time,  who  will  rank  with 
the  greatest  public  men  of  any  age  and  any  land, 
Gladstone,  says  :  “  The  Pope  demands  for  himself  the 
right  to  determine  the  province  of  his  own  rights,  and 
has  so  defined  it  in  formal  documents  as  to  warrant 

any  and  every  invasion  of  the  civil  sphere . 

Rome  requires  a  convert  who  joins  her,  to  forfeit  his 
moral  and  mental  freedom,  and  to  place  his  loyalty 
and  civil  duty  at  the  mercy  of  another.”  Prince 
Bismarck,  in  a  speech  delivered  April  16,  1875,  said  : 
“  This  Pope,  this  foreigner,  this  Italian,  is  more 
powerful  in  this  country  than  any  other  person,  not 
excepting  even  the  king.  And  now  please  to  con¬ 
sider  what  this  foreigner  has  announced  as  the  pro¬ 
gramme  by  which  he  rules  Prussia  and  elsewhere. 
He  begins  by  taking  to  himself  the  right  to  define 
how  far  his  authority  extends  ;  and  this  Pope,  who 
would  employ  fire  and  sword  against  us  if  he  had  the 
power  to  do  so,  who  would  confiscate  our  property 
and  not  spare  our  lives,  expects  us  to  allow  him  full, 
uncontrolled  sway.”  So  speak  the  mightest  states¬ 
men  of  our  age,  and  shall  we  not  hear  these  warning 
voices?  and  shall  we  not  interpret  the  movements  of 
the  Romish  prelates  in  America  on  the  basis  of  their 
own  vows,  and  according  to  the  developments  of 
their  plans  in  other  lands?  Can  we  anticipate  a 
brighter  future  for  America,  under  the  Papal  tyranny, 
than  could  have  been  anticipated  for  Spain,  for  Italy, 
for  France,  for  Portugal?  No.  The  highest  duty 
and  obligation  which  we  recognize  as  Christians  — 

O  O 

our  duty  to  God  who  holds  us  responsible  for  the 


38 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


preservation  of  our  glorious  heritage  received  from 
our  fathers  —  every  consideration  of  private  right  and 
public  weal,  all  demand,  that  at  a  time  of  such  great 
peril,  we  should  turn  aside  from  our  customary  over¬ 
sanguine  hopes  and  optimistic  views  of  America’s 
certain  future,  to  consider  how  we  can  reproduce,  in 
time  to  come,  the  unequaled  glories  of  the  past,  and 
against  the  rule  of  the  most  to  be  dreaded  of  foreign 
foes,  maintain  in  the  future  a  church  without  a 
tyrannous  Papal  bishop,  and  a  state  without  a  king. 


Sermon  EE 


THE  JESUITS  AND  THEIR  PURPOSE. 

“Watch  ye,  stand  fast  in  the  faith,  quit  you  like  men,  be 
Strong.”  —  1  Cor.  16:  13. 

“  If  the  trumpet  give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall 
prepare  himself  for  the  battle?”  The  clarion  voice 
of  our  text,  in  the  vigor  with  which  it  calls  upon  us 
to  be  watchful,  steadfast,  manly  and  strong,  stirs  our 
souls.  They  misunderstand  the  Scriptures  who  sup¬ 
pose  that  words  like  these  apply  only  to  the  smaller 
details  of  our  personal  life.  On  the  contrary,  these 
directions  have  the  widest  range  and  application, 
defining  our  duty  and  attitude  toward  the  great  move¬ 
ments  in  which  we  bear  a  part,  and  on  which  world¬ 
wide  consequences  depend.  “  Watch  ye,”  be  alert, 
vigilant,  observant,  “  stand  fast  in  the  faith,”  “  con¬ 
tend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  unto  the 
saints,”  be  unyielding,  adamantine  in  resistance,  to 
error,  “  stand  like  a  rock,  and  the  storm  and  battle 
little  shall  harm  you  in  doing  their  worst ;”  quit  you 
like  men”  in  active  work  for  God  and  his  truth  ;  “  be 
strong;”  the  result  of  watchfulness,  steadfastness  in 
the  faith,  manliness  in  action,  is  personal  strength 
and  individual  power,  which  you  should  always  culti¬ 
vate  and  display.  Such,  in  brief,  is  the  general  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  text. 


40 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


In  its  application  to  the  hidden  and  open  conspir¬ 
acy  of  Romanism  against  the  doctrines  of  God  and 
the  liberty  of  American  Christians  —  the  position 
which  we  should  hold  for  the  protection  of  our  dear¬ 
est  rights  —  no  words  could  be  more  significant. 

O  O 

“  Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty,”  therefore 
“  watch,”  lest,  unexpectedly,  some  enemy  shall  take 
away  the  privileges  which  most  you  prize.  “Stand 
fast  in  the  faith,”  hold  strongly,  kindly,  firmly,  the 
princples  of  Scriptural  truth  and  of  political  freedom, 
which,  together,  are  the  principles  of  Protestantism. 
Do  not  feebly  consent  to  lose  your  liberties,  but 
“  quit  you  like  men  ;”  and,  while  without  the  bigot’s 
animosity,  maintain  the  freeman’s  determined  front. 
For  the  sake  of  yourselves,  your  country,  the  church, 
your  children,  “be  strong,”  indomitable. 

In  the  personal  application  of  this  great  exhorta¬ 
tion  for  the  government  of  our  conduct,  we  cannot 
really  perceive  or  understand  the  menace  of  Roman¬ 
ism,  unless  we  review  the  history  of  the  past  as  well 
as  attentively  survey  the  present.  You  all  are  some¬ 
what  familiar  with  the  facts  of  the  great  Reformation 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  In  our  blind  optimism, 
we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  our  liberties  are 
secure,  that  our  present  advantages  can  never  be  for¬ 
feited,  forgetful  of  the  fact  that  God  sometimes  per¬ 
mits  the  hands  of  progress  to  be  turned  back  upon 
the  dial  of  history,  as  he  permitted  Rome  in  the 
century  of  which  we  speak,  to  weld  again  the 
fetters  which  the  Reformation  had  broken,  and  fasten 
them  for  centuries  more  upon  the  prostrate  nations. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


41 


The  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  saw  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  predominant  over  all  religi¬ 
ous,  civil  and  social  life  throughout  Europe.  The 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  with  its  emperor,  was  in  sub¬ 
jection  to  the  Pope  of  Rome.  The  civil  rulers 
bowed  at  the  footstools  of  the  Papal  power,  trem¬ 
bled  at  its  threats,  and  accepted  its  dictation.  The 
leading  ecclesiastic  of  Germany,  Albert,  Archbishop 
of  Mentz,  afterward  cardinal,  having  boldly  pur¬ 
chased  his  office  at  a  great  price,  reimbursed  him¬ 
self,  and  poured  money  into  the  Papal  treasury  by 
securing  the  monopoly  of  the  sale  of  indulgences,  of 
which  Tetzel  was  the  agent  and  auctioneer.  The 
priests,  largely  corrupted  in  morals  and  careless  of 
the  welfare  of  the  people,  were  willing  that  the  flock 
should  be  plundered,  provided  the  spoil  went  into 
the  treasury  of  the  church.  Even  the  Jesuit  Favre, 
at  the  Diet  at  Worms,  testified  that  the  priests 
were  guilty  of  grievous  crimes.  The  people, 
shrouded  in  dark  superstition,  ignorant  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  enslaved  by  their  ecclesiastical 
masters,  were  still  deemed  worth  plundering,  and 
were  yielding  up  their  wealth  to  enrich  the  Papal 
court  south  of  the  Alps.  That  court  was  more 
interested  in  the  revival  of  polite  and  classical  learn¬ 
ing  and  in  gratifying  its  vices,  than  in  spreading  the 
Gospel  of  God.  Then,  when  the  times  were  ripe, 
Luther  arose,  and  nailed  to  the  door  of  the  old  church 
in  Wittenberg  those  ninety-live  immortal  theses 
which  became  the  text  and  proclamation  of  the 
great  Reformation.  The  ring  of  his  hammer  startled 


42 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


the  Pope  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  Roman  ecclesi¬ 
astics  throughout  the  world.  Rapidly  the  Refor¬ 
mation  spread  throughout  Germany  and  the  north¬ 
ern  nations,  through  England,  Scotland,  Denmark, 
Sweden,  Livonia,  the  Palatinate  and  part  of  Swit¬ 
zerland.  France  became  also  penetrated  with  the 
new  doctrine;  even  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  were 
moved  thereby  ;  while  it  seemed  that  Bavaria,  Hun¬ 
gary,  Bohemia  and  Poland  were  likely  to  follow  the 
example  of  others  in  denying  the  assumptions  of  the 
Pope,  and  accepting  the  word  of  God,  rather  than 
the  traditions  of  men.  “Within  fifty  years  of  the 
day  when  Luther  publicly  renounced  communion 
with  Rome,”  says  Lord  Macaulay,  “  Protestantism 
attained  its  highest  ascendancy,  an  ascendancy  which 
it  soon  lost ;  and  which  it  never  regained.”  (  This 
was  written  in  1#40.)  Then  arose  a  counter  move¬ 
ment  in  the  south  of  Europe,  a  reformation  of 
methods  and  of  discipline  in  the  church  of  Rome. 
In  two  generations,  a  powerful  reaction  had  con¬ 
firmed  the  supremacy  of  the  Papacy  in  all  the  uncer¬ 
tain  territory,  and  France,  Spain,  Italy,  Poland, 
Hungary  and  Bohemia  became  the  servile  dependents 
of  Romanism,  and  so  remained  for  nearly  three 
hundred  years. 

This  counter  movement  in  the  Romish  church,  by 
which  it  held  almost  undisputed  power  over  these 
nations  for  more  than  three  centuries,  is  due,  more 
than  to  any  other  agency,  to  Ignatius  Loyola,  and  the 
Jesuit  society  of  which  he  was  the  founder.  The  power 
of  this  organization  within  the  Romish  church, — 


Romanism,  and  the  Republic . 


43 


an  organization  which  through  many  vicissitudes  is 
still  intact,  and  is  to-day  the  very  core  of  Romanism 
in  its  principles  and  its  policy, —  claims  our  attention, 
and  must  be  studied  in  its  purposes  and  its  methods, 
in  order  that  we  may  be  informed  of  the  intentions 
and  claims  of  Romanism  in  the  United  States,  and 
that  we  may  properly  guard  and  protect  our  country 
against  the  destruction  plotted  against  us  by  a  sleep¬ 
less  and  cruel  foe.  It  is  impossible  to  understand 
the  Romish  church  of  to-day  or  of  the  past  three 
hundred  years,  without  a  knowledge  of  the  Jesuits 
and  their  influence  in  the  church  ;  and  it  is  equally 
impossible  to  clearly  apprehend  the  Jesuit  doctrines 
and  purposes,  unless  we  know  something  of  their 
founder.  I  therefore  beg  your  attention  for  a  little, 
to  some  facts  which  throw  light  upon  the  history  of 
Ignatius  Loyola,  first  general  of  the  Jesuits,  who 
created  the  organization,  formulated  its  constitution, 
directed  its  beginnings,  and  infused  into  it  his  spirit. 

1.  Ignatius  Loyola  was  born  in  1491,  in  the  north 
of  Spain,  of  the  family  of  Loyola,  who  were  among  the 
grandees  of  that  country.  He  early  became  a  page 
at  the  court  of  Ferdinand  the  Catholic,  and  was  dis¬ 
tinguished  as  a  gallant  and  a  courtier.  He  had  for 
his  dulcinea,  as  he  tells  us,  4 4  not  a  duchess  nor  a 
countess,  but  one  of  higher  rank,”  and  was  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  court  at  joust  and  tournament  as  one 
of  the  brave  warriors  and  handsome  courtiers  of  the 
day.  At  twenty-nine  years  of  age,  when  the  French 
troops  of  Francis  I.  poured  over  the  border,  Loyola 
was  present  in  the  little  city  of  Pampeluna,  to  which 


44 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


they  laid  siege.  The  governor  and  commander  of 
the  city  resolved  to  yield  it  up.  Loyola  protested 
with  vigor,  secured  the  assistance  of  a  single  soldier, 
and  throwing  himself  into  the  citadel,  desperately 
resolved  to  defend  it  to  the  last.  A  few  more  joined 
him,  and  in  their  desperate  resistance,  while  bravely 
fighting  on  the  wall,  Loyola  was  struck  down  by 
missiles  which  broke  one  of  his  legs.  He  was 
carried  to  his  ancestral  home  and  laid  upon  a  bed  of 
suffering.  The  imperfect  surgery  of  the  time,  after 
inflicting  exquisite  torture,  which  he  bravely  endured, 
at  length  left  one  of  his  legs  shorter  than  the  other, 
destroying  his  fitness  for  the  court  and  military 
exercises.  At  this  time,  while  heroically  suffering, 
lying  on  a  sick  bed,  and  aware  that  he  was  maimed 
for  life,  there  was  put  into  his  hands  a  book  called 
the  “  Lives  of  the  Saints,'7  and  some  simple  pictorial 
life  of  Christ.  Heading  the  “  Lives  of  the  Saints,’7 

O  7 

this  disappointed  cavalier  began  to  revolve  in  his 
mind  visions  of  another  knighthood  in  the  service  of 
the  church.  “  Why  cannot  I  do  for  the  church  what 
St.  Dominic  and  St.  Francis  did?”  he  said.  And 
then  and  there,  his  imagination  picturing  to  him 
the  glories  of  such  a  service,  he  devoted  himself  to 
the  service  of  Our  Lady  and  of  the  Church. 

Romanist  historians  delight  to  tell  how  at  this 
time  St.  Peter  appeared  and  cured  him  of  a  fever ; 
and  how,  praying,  he  saw  the  Virgin  Mother  and  the 
Child.  They  also  tell  of  an  earthquake  rending  the 
walls  of  his  room,  while  the  rest  of  the  castle  was 
not  shaken.  Loyola’s  resolution  was  now  taken ; 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


45 


he  would  become  a  monk ;  smd  having  recovered  a 
degree  of  health,  he  mounted  his  steed  and  started 
for  the  neighboring  convent  of  Montserrat.  It 
shows  the  fierce  temper  of  the  man,  that  while  on 
his  way  to  the  convent,  he  overtook  a  Moor,  with 
whom  he  disputed  about  the  virginity  of  the  blessed 
Mother.  The  Moor  admitted  that  she  was  such 
before  the  birth  of  the  Christ,  but  denied  that  she 
was  afterward.  The  debate  waxed  warm,  and  the 
Moor  parted  from  Loyola  and  galloped  forward. 
Loyola  following,  resolved  that  if  his  mule,  on  whose 
neck  he  laid  the  reins,  should  follow  the  road  which 
the  Moor  had  taken,  he  would  assail  the  infidel,  and 
stab  him  to  the  heart.  Fortunately  the  animal  took 
the  other  road  up  the  mountain,  and  Loyola  was 
saved  the  guilt  of  fanatical  and  vengeful  murder. 
Arriving  at  the  convent,  he  gave  his  rich  clothing  to 
a  beggar,  taking  the  beggar’s  rags  in  exchange, 
retaini ng  only  his  jewelled  dagger  and  sword.  These 
he  hung  up  before  the  image  of  Our  Lady,  and 
through  a  long  night,  as  did  the  ancient  knights,  in 
vigil,  devoted  himself  to  the  service  of  his  mistress. 
Next  day  he  goes  to  the  hospital,  not  far  off,  where, 
thirsting  for  humility  and  suffering,  he  performs  the 
most  menial  and  disgusting  services  for  the  sick. 
No  service  was  too  shocking  for  him.»  But  being 

o  o 

annoyed  by  those  who  recognized  him  as  a  noble,  he 
departs  from  the  hospital,  and  betakes  himself  to  the 
horrible  and  lonely  cave  of  Manresa,  in  which  he 
spends  two  years.  Here  he  has  unspeakable  agony 
of  mind,  starves  himself  almost  to  death,  and  sees 


46 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


visions,  alternately  threatening  and  e  msoling.  Here, 
at  this  time,  lie  composed  the  only  writings,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  letters,  which  he  wrote  during 
his  life  ;  the  first  work,  A  Manual  of  Spiritual  Exer¬ 
cises  for  the  creation  of  that  society  of  which  he 
afterward  became  the  founder  ;  the  second  work,  The 
Constitution  and  Rules  by  which  that  society  should 
be  governed.  Filled  with  a  visionary  purpose  of 
converting  Oriental  nations,  he  starts,  at  the  age  of 
thirty-one,  for  Palestine,  begging  his  way.  Arriving 
there,  he  is  forced  to  return  by  the  authorities  of  the 
church,  there  being  no  place  for  him.  Once  more 
in  Spain,  and  having  seen  the  need  of  education  for 
the  work  which  he  desired  to  do,  at  thirty-three 
years  of  age  he  goes  to  school,  and  sitting  on  the 
bench  beside  little  boys,  studies  the  Latin  language. 
About  this  time  he  is  said  to  have  seen  the  Holy 
Trinity  in  a  vision,  to  have  witnessed  also  the  very 
fact  of  tnmsubstantiation  by  which  the  bread  is 
changed  to  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  mass,  to  have 
beheld  the  soul  of  a  friend  who  died  taken  visibly 
to  the  heavens,  and,  still  more  wonderful,  he  is  said, 
in  a  vision,  to  have  been  taught  more  of  natural 
science  than  falls  to  the  lot  of  most  men  to  know. 
The  Romanist  biographers  seriously  tell  how  he 
was  raised  bodily  from  the  ground  while  at  prayer, 
cured  incurables  by  a  touch,  and  much  more  of  the 
same  sort.  Two  years  later,  he  goes  to  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Alcala,  later  still  to  Salamanca,  and  at 
thirty-eight  years  of  age,  following  an  inward  voice, 
to  the  University  of  Paris. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


47 


He  is  here  distinguished  for  the  intensity  of  his 
devotion,  more  than  for  any  scholarly  ability.  At 
forty-four,  he  took  his  degree  in  philosophy,  at  the 
University  of  Paris.  But  meanwhile,  steadily  pur¬ 
suing  his  purpose  to  found  a  society,  he  gathers  its 
nucleus  in  the  person  of  Xavier,  Laynez,  Bobadilla 
and  two  or  three  others,  who,  with  mutual  vows, 
resolve  that  they  will  obey  the  constitutions  which 
he  has  formulated.  Leaving  Paris  they  go  to  Rome 
together,  he  seeing  more  visions  on  the  way,  and  in 
1540,  after  earnest  solicitations  of  the  Pope,  when 
Loyola  is  forty-nine  years  of  age,  the  society  of 
Jesuits  is  formed.  Loyola  forsook  all  his  family 
connections  when  he  entered  Montserrat,  and  with 
them  he  held  scarcely  any  communication  afterward. 
He  left  his  native  country,  for  which  he  never  seems 
to  have  cherished  further  regard  ;  abandoned,  in  fact, 
all  human  friends.  For,  though  he  inspired  wonder¬ 
ful  devotedness  in  men  to  his  ideas,  he  seems  never 
to  have  had  a  friend ;  unless  in  the  person  of  one  or 
two  women,  who  followed  him  with  almost  supersti¬ 
tious  devotion, —  one  of  whom  formed  a  religious 
house  near  that  of  the  Jesuits  in  Rome. 

I  note  these  particulars,  that  you  may  see  the 
character  of  the  man,  because  it  is  reflected  in  his 
society.  He  is  a  typical  Romish  Ecclesiastic  and 
Jesuit. 

How  different  the  typical  Protestant,  as  seen  in 
the  character  of  Martin  Luther.  Born  in  1483, 
Martin  Luther  at  twelve  attends  school  at 
Magdeburg;  at  fourteen  goes  to  Eisenach,  and  is 

O  O  7  O  ' 


48 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


soon  distinguished  for  skill  in  music,  eloquence,  and 
philosophy  ;  at  eighteen  he  enters  the  University  at 
Erfurt,  and  becomes  bachelor  and  master  of  arts  at 
twenty-two;  at  twenty-five  is  selected,  on  account 
of  his  great  ability  and  scholarship,  to  be  professor 
of  philosophy  in  the  University  at  Wittenburg ;  at 
twenty-nine  is  doctor  of  theology,  a  Biblical  Doctor, 
he  says,  pledged  to  teach  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  and 
before  he  has  attained  the  years  at  which  Loyola  left 
the  University  of  Paris,  Luther  has  propounded  his 
theses,  debated  with  Dr.  Eck,  and  vanquished  both 
Cajetan  and  DeVio,  the  Papal  legates  ;  has  defied  the 
Pope,  the  Church,  and  the  Emperor,  in  the  brave  and 
dauntless  stand  which  he  took  for  the  word  of  God, 
and  the  liberty  of  the  church,  at  the  diet  of  Worms ; 
has  translated  and  given  to  the  people  in  their  native 
tongue  the  whole  New  Testament ;  and  has  super¬ 
vised  the  translation  of  the  Old,  which  glorious  book 
became  not  only  the  foundation  of  the  Reformation 
but  of  German  Literature  also  ;  and  has  come  to  be 
universally  recognized  as  one  of  the  most  profound 
scholars,  one  of  the  most  eloquent  preachers,  as  also 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  university  professors 
of  Germany  and  Christendom. 

This  Luther,  with  his  broad  scholarship,  his  love 
of  the  people,  his  respect  for  his  parents,  and  devo¬ 
tion  to  his  friends,  his  warm  social  companionships, 
his  fond  and  tender  home-life, —  Luther,  with  his  little 
children  about  his  knees,  his  little  daughter  dying  in 
his  arms,  with  all  the  humanities  of  a  man,  with  all 
the  tenderness  of  a  woman,  with  all  the  bravery  of  a 

1  V 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


49 


reformer,  and  the  instincts  of  a  statesman,  is  as  truly 
a  typical  Protestant,  as  the  concentrated,  fanatical, 
half-educated  Loyola  is  a  typical  son  of  the  church. 
So  much  for  the  root,  out  of  which  grew  the  society 
of  Jesuits. 

2.  The  first,  most  manifest  design  of  the  Jesuits  was 

7  O 

to  exterminate  Protestantism ;  the  second,  to  build 
up  the  Roman  church ;  included  in  this  latter,  was 
their  purpose  to  diminish  the  power  of  the  bishops, 
in  favor  of  the  supremacy,  the  absolutism,  the 
infallibility  of  the  Pope,  and  then  to  gain  control  of 
that  Pope,  as  embodying  the  church,  and  so  advanc¬ 
ing  their  society.  In  order  to  the  accomplishment 
of  these  purposes,  the  constitution  of  the  society 
was  formulated  by  Loyola ;  a  constitution  which  I 
cannot  give  you  in  detail  only  for  lack  of  time,  but 
some  of  whose  salient  points  are  as  follows  : 

1.  Every  Jesuit  is  bound  by  the  constitution  of 
the  society,  and  a  solemn  oath,  or  vow,  to  poverty, 
chastity  and  obedience.  To  these  also  is  added,  in 
the  case  of  the  so-called  “  professed,”  a  fourth 
vow  of  absolute  obedience  to  the  Pope.  Not  all  the 
Jesuits  take  these  four  vows,  but  only  according  to 
the  grade  to  which  they  attain  in  the  society. 

Concerning  the  vow  of  poverty,  by  which  they 
deny  themselves  all  worldly  possessions  —  Loyola  is 
said  to  have  debated  and  prayed  forty  days  and 
forty  nights.  The  general  of  the  society  is  made 
the  trustee  of  their  possessions.  So  extreme  were 
Loyola’s  views  on  this  point,  that  a  Roman  Catholic 
historian  tells  us,  that  if  one  of  the  brothers  plucked 


50 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


a  flower  or  picked  up  an  apple  in  the  garden  of  their 
house,  Loyola  visited  the  offence  with  severe  pen¬ 
ance,  as  violating  this  rule  of  poverty,  by  possession. 
And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  vow,  when  the  society 
was  suppressed  in  1772  by  the  act  of  Pope  Clement 
XIV.,  they  were  found  possessed  of  more  than 
$200,000,000.  It  was  also  the  law  of  the  society 
correlate  to  this,  that  no  Jesuit  should  hold  any 
office,  save  in  the  society.  Nevertheless,  at  this  time, 
they  had  twenty-four  cardinals,  six  electors  of  the 
empire,  nineteen  princes,  twenty-one  archbishops, 
and  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  titular  bishops ; 
showing  clearly  how  the  lust  of  power  gained 
supremacy  over  their  vows. 

The  vow  of  chastity ,  similar  to  that  which  Romish 
priests  now  take,  was  to  so  separate  them  from  the 
ordinary  domestic  duties  of  life,  that  their  sole 
devotion  should  be  given  to  the  church.  Perhaps,  to 
a  considerable  extent,  they  have  honored  this  vow ; 
but  a  purpose  so  contrary  to  nature  and  the  word 
and  will  of  God,  has  never  in  any  age  warranted  the 
assertion  that  the  celibates  of  Rome  were  chaste. 

The  vow  of  obedience ,  however,  seemed  to  be  the 
strongest  and  most  essential  part  of  the  constitution 
of  the  Jesuits.  This  obedience  is  absolute,  and  is  to 
be  paid  to  the  superior.  Says  Loyola  :  “  I  ought  to 
obey  the  superior  as  God,  in  whose  place  he  stands.” 
Every  Jesuit’s  oath  includes  these  words  ;  “  To  you, 
the  Father-General,  and  to  your  successors,  whom  I 
regard  as  holding  the  place  of  God,  perpetual  pov¬ 
erty,  chastity  and  obedience,  etc.”  Loyola’s  under- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


51 


standing  of  this  vow  is  declared  in  his  famous  letter 
on  obedience,  when  he  writes  that  this  obedience 
should  be  so  absolutely  passive  that  one  should  be 
like  a  dead  body  moved  only  by  the  will  of  another, 
or  like  a  staff  in  the  hands  of  an  old  man,  or  like  a 
crucifix  in  the  hands  of  a  worshipper.  The  virtue  of 
this  obedience  is  in  proportion  to  its  absoluteness. 
When  the  intellect  does  not  even  raise  an  inquiry 
about  the  thing  commanded,  when  the  Jesuit  yields 
without  the  shadow  of  a  will  or  purpose  of  his  own, 
then  obedience  attains  perfection.  Among  the  first 
things  which  happen  to  a  novice,  who  is  to  become  a 
Jesuit,  is  the  entire  breaking  down  of  his  will.  This 
is  systematically  sought  and  secured.  In  some  cases, 
the  novice  passing  the  first  night  in  a  Jesuit  house, 
lias  been  tested  as  follows  :  When  he  has  fallen 
asleep,  he  has  been  awakened,  commanded  to  rise, 
take  up  his  mattress,  and  go  to  another  room,  and 
this  a^ain  and  amiin  through  the  night.  If  he  asks 
why,  or  raises  the  slightest  query  or  objection,  he 
is  considered  unfit  for  the  society. 

This  rule  of  absolute  obedience,  to  go  anywhere 
and  perform  any  service  at  the  command  of  the 
superior,  is  now  fully  enforced.  A  friend  of  mine 
received  the  following  admissions  and  explanation 
from  a  company  of  Jesuits  with  whom  he  sailed  on  a 
ship  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  a  few  years  since. 
They  were  missionaries,  going  under  orders.  They 
said  :  “  Wherever  we  are,  in  the  garden,  in  the  street, 
if  the  command  comes  to  us  to  go  to  any  part  of  the 
earth,  to  Asia,  Africa,  America,  on  any  service,  we 


52 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


do  not  wait  to  enter  the  house  for  money,  for  cloth¬ 
ing,  or  for  farewells,  but  simply  and  at  once  start 
from  where  we  are  and  go.” 

Loyola  insisted  on  this  rule  of  obedience  with  the 
utmost  rigor.  An  old  monk,  who  preferred  wearing 
his  night-cap  in  the  house  to  the  beretta  prescribed 
by  the  rule,  was  dismissed.  The  professor  of  the¬ 
ology  was  sometimes  commanded  by  Loyola  to  take 
the  place  of  the  cook,  and  the  cook  the  place  of  the 
professor  of  theology  ;  ora  priest,  in  the  midst  of  the 
mass,  was  commanded  to  20  into  the  street ;  and  all 
this  must  be  done  without  question,  however  absurd. 
A  modest  monk,  coming  into  Loyola’s  presence  and 
told  to  be  seated,  who  did  not  instantly  comply,  was 
commanded  to  take  the  chair  on  his  head,  and  hold 
it  there  as  long  as  he  remained.  And  these  are  but 
a  few  of  the  illustrations  taken  from  Romish  authors, 
which  show  how  completely  Loyola  insisted  on  the 
fulfillment  of  this  vow.  The  rigors  of  military 
discipline  to  which  he  was  accustomed  in  early  life, 
appear  in  all  the  constitutions  and  practice  of  the 
society,  and  their  head  is  called  the  general. 

The  vow  of  obedience  to  the  Pope,  the  fourth  and 
last  of  these  vows,  taken  by  the  highest  members  of 
the  profession,  has  been  kept  only  when  the  Pope 
was  obedient  to  the  will  of  the  Jesuits.  Loyola  him- 
self,  by  diplomacy  and  evasion,  contended  with  the 
Pope,  and  won  his  point  too.  Again  and  again,  in  the 
history  of  the  society,  the  clashing  of  the  Papal 
will  with  the  will  of  the  general  of  the  Jesuits,  has 
resulted  in  the  submission  or  the  ruin  of  the  Pope. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


53 


Several  popes  have  died,  apparently  by  poison,  at  the 
hand  of  this  Order,  who  vowed  obedience  to  them  as 
Sixtus  V.,  Urban  VII.,  Clement  VIII.,  and  Clement 
XIV. 


4.  Turning  from  these  Constitutions,  in  the 
third  place,  we  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the 
methods  and  principles  of  this  society.  Among  the 
first  duties  of  a  Jesuit,  to  which  he  devotes  his  life, 
is  the  teaching  of  the  young.  This  apparently  laud¬ 
able  purpose,  made  the  Jesuits  the  school-masters  of 
Europe.  Far  and  wide  they  founded  their  houses  of 
learning ;  as  Luther  before  had  founded  them  in 


Germany.  “  They  possessed  themselves  of  the  pul¬ 
pit,  press,  confesssional  and  the  school,”  as  says 
Macaulay.  But  never  forget  that  the  first  and  sole 
purpose  of  the  society  as  a  teacher,  is  to  make  sub¬ 
missive  Roman  Catholics.  This  determines  the  kind 
and  quantity  of  their  teaching,  and  this  must  account 
for  the  fact  that,  in  those  countries  where  the  Papacy 
and  the  Jesuit  have  had  completest  sway,  there  is 
found  to-day  the  most  extraordinary  percentage  of 
illiteracy  :  as  witness,  Italy,  where  73  per  cent,  of  the 
people  are  illiterate,  or  Spain  with  80  per  cent.,  and 
Mexico  with  93  per  cent.  Could  this  have  been  true 
if  the  Jesuits,  fulfilling  their  vow  to  teach,  had  really 
opened  the  avenues  of  knowledge  to  their  scholars? 
Rome  educates  only  where  she  must,  where  Protest¬ 
antism  compels  her  to  do  so.  From  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics  have  come  some  of  the  severest  criticisms  on  the 
narrowness  of  their  methods  of  instruction. 


54 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Secondly.  The  Jesuit  vowed  to  devote  himself  to 
missions.  Out  of  this  vow,  sprang  the  heroic  devo¬ 
tion  of  Xavier  and  his  associates,  in  India,  of  the 
Jesuit  missions  to  China,  to  Japan,  to  North  and 
South  America,  and  Mexico.  Of  this  mission  work 
in  China,  in  Japan,  and  in  North  America,  there  is 
hardly  a  trace  remaining.  In  India,  they  prepared 
the  way  for  the  English  power,  without  intending  to 
do  so.  It  is  true  that  they  degraded  the  gospel  with 
pagan  rites,  so  that  nine  popes  vehemently  con¬ 
demned  their  methods  and  tried  in  vain  to  reform 
them. 

In  the  third  place,  their  method  and  principle 
includes  the  assertion  and  upholding  of  the  infallibil¬ 
ity  of  the  pope.  The  statement  of  this  doctrine  in 
full  must  be  reserved  to  a  later  time  with  all  its  absurd 
and  hurtful  consequences  ;  but  the  word  infallibility 
conveys  its  plain  meaning.  The  pope,  according  to 
the  Jesuit  idea,  is  the  church,  His  decisions,  speak¬ 
ing  in  bulls,  encyclicals  and  the  like,  are  as  binding 
as  the  word  of  God.  Notwithstanding  the  alleged 
infallibility  of  the  pope  and  his  absolute  supremacy, 
they  have  repeatedly  evaded  and  violated  his  com¬ 
mands.  They  are  responsible  for  that  recent  decree 
of  the  Vatican  council,  which  makes  Papal  infallibil¬ 
ity  as  much  a  doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  existence  of  God  ;  and  it  is  a  common 
jest  in  Rome,  that  the  Jesuit  general,  who  is  known 
as  the  “  Black  Pope,”  is  superior  to  the  creature  of 
the  cardinals,  who  is  known  as  the  “White  Pope.” 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


55 


Fourth,  The  Jesuits,  among  their  leading  principles, 
insist  on  the  secular  power  of  the  pope,  his  right  to 
rule  as  a  temporal  prince  and  monarch  over  all  civil 
governors,  princes,  kings,  rulers  and  legislators. 
They  have  urged  on  and  defended  him  in  deposing 
monarchs,  absolving  Romanists  from  obedience  to 
laws,  and  other  treasonable  acts,  and  that  within 
twenty-five  years.  The  supremacy  of  the  Papal 
dictum  in  all  matters  that  relate  to  faith  and  morals, 
includes  also,  in  their  theory,  all  that  relates  remotely 
to  the  discipline  of  the  church.  And  yet,  notwith¬ 
standing  their  devotion  to  the  secular  power  of  the 
pope,  they,  perhaps  more  than  any  other  society, 
have  contributed  to  the  loss  of  Papal  influence,  not 
only  in  the  Roman  States,  but  also  in  other  countries 
of  the  world.  And  to  show  the  blight  of  their  rule 
and  government,  where  pope  and  Jesuit  were  supreme 
in  the  Roman  States,  the  morality  of  the  people 
degenerated  to  the  lowest  ebb  of  virtue,  the  deepest 
infamy  of  vice. 

As  the  last  of  the  principles  on  which  the  society . 
works,  which  I  may  now  mention  — they  hold  that 
the  end  justifies  the  means  ;  that  if  the  end  is  good, 
whatever  means  are  used  thereto  are  o-ood.  Prob- 

O 

ably  it  was  this  conception  that  made  Loyola  join 
with  Cardinal  Paul  and  Cardinal  Caraffa,  in  establish¬ 
ing  the  Inquisition  in  Portugal.  Although  some  of 
the  Jesuits  deny  this  as  a  principle  of  their  conduct, 
the  proofs  are  too  abundant.  Guryand  Busenbaum, 
Layman  and  Wagemann,  in  Jesuit  treatises  on  theo¬ 
logy  and  morals,  distinctly  avow  the  doctrine,  and 


I 


56  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

thus  justify  any  wickedness  in  pursuit  of  the  purpose 
of  upbuilding  the  Church  of  Rome.  (See  Dr. 
Littledale  in  Encyc.  Biit.,  Art.  Jesuits.')  And  their 
practice,  in  the  judgment  of  the  ablest  historians, 
proves  how  fully  they  apply  their  theory.  Macaulay, 
Ranke,  and  Hallam,  lay  at  their  door  crimes  against 
the  state,  against  society,  and  against  the  person, 
which  can  only  be  excused  on  the  ground  that  blind 
devotion  to  the  church  had  made  the  instigators  of 
these  crimes  reckless  of  the  means  which  they  pur¬ 
sued  to  obtain  their  ends.  The  assassination  of 
William  of  Orange,  of  Henry  TV.  of  France,  attempts 
on  the  life  of  Elizabeth  of  England,  the  Gunpowder 
Plot,  the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  the  Revo¬ 
cation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  are  illustrations  of  the 
wicked  deeds  with  which  history  too  closely  connects 
them. 

Loyola’s  military  experience,  and  rigid  military 
ideas,  appear  everywhere  in  the  modes  of  the  society 
and  its  administration.  Under  their  general  are 
provincials,  who  have  charge  of  certain  territory,  and 
a  still  lower  grade  of  officers  are  called  rectors  ;  and 
a  complete  system  of  espionage  is  kept  up  ;  not  only 
on  all  members  of  the  society,  but  on  all  the  events 
of  the  community  where  they  dwell,  a  minute  report 
of  which  is  regularly  and  carefully  sent  to  Rome. 
This  has  been  their  method  for  centuries,  and  is  their 
method  to-day. 

4.  If  the  purpose  of  this  society  was  religious, 
solely  or  mostly  ;  if  by  their  poverty  they  simply 
meant  to  separate  themselves  from  the  world;  if  by 


I 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  57 

their  chastity,  they  would  encourage  a  certain  ideal 
of  purity,  and  if  obedience  only  meant  ready  sub¬ 
ordination  to  the  command  of  a  good  leader,  in  the 
pursuit  of  a  good  work,  how  does  it  happen  that  the 
Society  of  Jesuits  has  incurred  the  suspicion,  the 
dislike,  the  antagonism,  the  fear  and  the  hatred  of 
almost  every  ruler  and  every  government  of  Europe, 
and  of  the  world  ? 

Let  us  speak  briefly,  in  closing,  of  their  work,  as 
far  as  that  work  can  be  epitomized  in  a  few  words. 
In  pursuance  of  their  designs,  scattering  to  all 
countries  of  Europe  and  of  the  world,  the  Jesuits 
would  be  supposed  to  have  been  the  allies  of  Roman 
Catholic  princes,  and  to  have  assisted  in  the  diffusion 
of  those  doctrines  and  principles  held  by  Roman 
Catholics,  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  faithful  sons  of  the 
church.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case. 

For  conspiracy,  machinations  and  evil  designing, 
the  Jesuits  have  been  banished  necessarily  from 
almost  every  state  of  Europe.  Roman  Catholic 
Portugal,  in  1759,  led  the  way;  and  under  the 
leadership  of  one  of  the  most  enlightened  statesmen 
that  Portugal  ever  had,  banished  them  from  the 
realm.  Spain  followed  shortly  after,  sending,  in  a 
single  day,  six  thousand  Jesuits  from  her  borders  to 
Italy;  and  as  late  as  1868,  the  Cortez  of  Spain 
reaffirmed  its  legislation  against  the  society  of 
Jesuits.  Parma  and  Naples  banished  them  ;  also 
Switzerland,  Prussia  and  Russia;  until  it  may  be 
said  in  truth,  that,  saving  the  insignificant  kingdom 
of  Belgium,  every  nation  of  Europe  has  legislated 
against  them. 


I 


58  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

Bat  more  than  this :  at  about  the  time  of  our 
Revolution,  the  attention  of  Pope  Clement  XIV.  hav¬ 
ing  been  called  to  the  abuses  created  by  the  Jesuit 
society,  after  extended  deliberation,  in  the  most 
solemn  terms,  rehearsing  the  evils  that  they  had 
done  in  and  out  of  the  church,  in  the  year  1772,  this 
Pope  pronounced  upon  them  the  ban  and  anathema 
of  the  Roman  curia,  and  forbade  that  they  should 
reorganize  or  exist  4  4  to  all  eternity.”  Another  pope, 
Pius  VI.,  confirmed  his  predecessor’s  decree.  The 
Jesuits  fled  to  Protestant  Prussia  and  to  Russia  also, 
whence  they  were  banished  again.  From  1772  to 
1814,  still  secretly  cherishing  their  society  in  defiance 
of  the  Pope,  and  working  ruin  wherever  they  went, 
the  Jesuits  existed  under  the  Papal  ban.  Then 
another  infallible  pope,  Pius  VII.,  regaVdless  of  the 
decree  of  his  predecessors,  reinstated  and  rehabili¬ 
tated  the  society  of  Jesuits.  The  decree  of  Clement 
XIV.  cost  him  his  life.  Bellarmine,  a  leading 
Jesuit  of  the  society,  prophesied  that  he  would  die 
within  a  year.  That  prophecy  was  regarded  as  a 
threat,  and  the  pope  died,  with  every  indication  of 
having  been  poisoned.  .The  unscrupulous  methods 
of  the  society,  which  have  caused  prince  and  pope 
and  legislature  to  lay  upon  them  their  heavy  hand, 
have  never  been  condemned  by  the  Jesuits,  nor  have 
they  ever  ceased  to  practice  them.  But  where  did  the 
banished  Jesuit  go  ?  Whither,  when  under  the  suspic¬ 
ion,  and  flying  from  the  hatred  of  the  rising  spirit  of 
freedom  in  Europe,  does  he  betake  himself,  and  where 
is  he  now?  I  answer,  In  America,  in  the  United 
States. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


59 


Our  country  is  the  paradise  of  Jesuits.  Unwarned 
by  the  experience  of  other  lands,  regardless  of  the 
bonds  they  weave  about  the  limbs  of  liberty,  we 
have  permitted  their  presence  in  this  country,  until 
almost  ready  to  throw  off  the  disguise,  they  now 
threaten  our  institutions  with  ruin.  It  is  the  Jesuit 
who  animates  the  attack  on  our  public  schools ;  the 
Jesuit  who  thrusts  his  hand  into  the  public  treasur¬ 
ies.  It  is  the  Jesuit  who  is  endeavoring  to  divide 
the  school  fund,  who  is  dictating  the  policy  by  which 
Romish  schools  shall  take  the  place  of  the  national 
schools.  It  is  the  Jesuit  who  is  decrying  free 
speech  and  liberty  of  conscience  and  a  free  press  ; 
who  is  doing  his  utmost  in  conformity  with  the  con¬ 
stitutions  of  the  society  of  which  he  is  a  sworn 
adherent,  and  of  the  Papacy  of  which  he  is  at  once 
the  dictator  and  the  slave,  to  reduce  free  America 
to  the  subjection  of  an  absolute  monarch. 

What  will  be  the  result?  Strange  and  wonderful 
to  say,  misfortune  and  disaster  to  themselves  seems 
to  follow  their  designs  against  government.  In  1870, 
it  was  their  influence  which  assembled  and  directed 
the  Vatican  Council,  which  should  exalt  still  higher 
the  dogmas  of  the  church,  and  overthrow  the  grow¬ 
ing  spirit  of  freedom.  It  was  their  plan,  at  the 
same  time,  to  declare  the  Pope  infallible,  and  to 
subjugate  Italy  and  Europe  to  his  power.  Napoleon 
III.  of  France,  the  favorite  son  of  the  church,  whose 
bayonets  were  the  guard  and  support  of  the  Papal 
throne,  was  led,  through  Jesuit  influence,  to  declare 
war  upon  Protestant  Prussia.  But  behold  !  while 


60 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


they  debated  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  the  mon¬ 
arch  on  whom  Pius  IX.  had  shed  the  blight  of  his  bles¬ 
sing  surrendered  himself,  his  army  and  his  empire 
at  Sedan,  and  free  Italy  began  to  march  on  Rome. 
Many  prelates  fled  the  Imperial  City,  and  the 
thunder  of  the  guns  of  Prussia  at  Sedan  was 
answered  by  the  cannon  of  free  Itaty,  turned  against 
the  gates  of  Rome.  Into  their  long  degraded  capi¬ 
tal  swept  the  hosts  of  freedom  ;  the  Quirinal  became 
the  palace  of  the  King  of  United  Italy,  Victor 
Emanuel,  and  when  the  few  hundred  ecclesiastics  of 
the  Papacy,  only  a  fraction  of  the  Council,  passed  the 
decree  which  made  the  Pope  an  infallible  prince,  it 
was  answered  b}T  the  huzzahs  of  liberty  throughout 
France  and  Italy.  Since  then,  the  Infallible  has 
whined  and  protested,  begged  and  threatened,  but 
he  is  an  Italian  subject  against  his  will,  and  must  be, 
while  he  stays  in  Rome.  God  grant  that  the  machin¬ 
ations  of  the  Roman  hierarchy  may  result  in  the 
emancipation  of  their  followers  from  Papal  tyranny 
in  America,  as  in  France  and  Italy  !  Let  Jesuitism, 
which  has  fled  to  America,  to  found  an  Empire  on 
the  ruins  of  the  Republic,  having  been  swept  by 
edict  from  the  Old  World,  here  And  a  grave  ;  while 
American  Catholic  Christians,  Romanist  and 
Protestant,  open  the  Word  of  God,  and  by  it  the 
gates  of  progress,  here,  in  the  free  Republic  of  the 
West. 


Sermon  EEE* 


THE  POPE  AND  THE  PAPAL  POWER  THE  FOES  OF 

FREEDOM. 


“That  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition;  Who 
opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or 
that  is  worshipped;  so  that  he  as  God  sitteth  in  the  temple  of 
God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God.” — 2  Thess.  2:  3,4. 

Many  very  able  commentators  believe  that  this  text 
prophesies  and  describes  the  Pope  of  Rome.  I  do 
not  affirm  that  the  sacred  writer  foretells  the  Papacy 
in  these  prophetic  words ;  but  we  risk  nothing  in 
claiming  that  the  description  actually  outlines  the 
pretensions  and  assumptions  of  the  Pope,  and  that 
Romanism  allows  to  him  nearly  all,  if  not  all,  of  the 
presumptuous  claims  that  are  here  indicated.  The 
lives  of  many  of  the  Popes  certainly  correspond  to 
the  definition  “  the  man  of  sin,”  in  their  scandalous 
wickedness  and  immorality.  Their  pride  and  pre¬ 
tensions  are  not  unfittingly  delineated  in  the  words, 
“who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that 
is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped  since,  as  I 
shall  show,  the  Pope  opposes  all  other  forms  of 
religion  excepting  the  Roman  Catholic,  and  exalts 
his  claims,  so  that  his  declarations  demand  of  Roman 
Catholics  as  absolute  respect  and  obedience  as  though 
they  were  the  very  words  of  God.  He  certainly 


62 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


“  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God  ;  ”  and  if  he  does  not 
say  “  I  am  God,”  he  presumptuously  asserts,  in  his 
claims  to  infallibility,  the  possession  of  attributes 
belonging  to  God  alone.  There  is  no  other  person¬ 
age  in  history  to  whom  these  words  seem  to  so 
exactly  apply  ;  and  whether  they  are  fit  to  describe 
him  you  shall  judge,  when  we  have  examined  his 
demands  and  his  government. 

You  will  remember,  that  in  the  former  discourse 
we  enlarged  upon  the  principles,  methods,  and  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  Jesuits,  and,  having  seen  that  their 
policy  was  one  of  absolute  imperialism,  directly 
opposed  to  freedom,  religious  and  civil,  we  affirmed 
that  they  now  dictate,  as  for  centuries  they  have 
controlled,  the  Papal  policy.  In  further  proof  of 
this,  Mr.  Gladstone  says  (“ Vatican  Decrees,”  page 
188)  :  “  The  Jesuits  are  the  men  who  cherish,  meth¬ 
odize,  transmit  and  exasperate  all  the  dangerous 

7  Co  o 

traditions  of  the  Curia.  In  them  it  lives.  The 
ambition  and  self-seeking  of  the  court  of  Rome  have 
here  their  root.  They  supply  that  Roman  malaria 
which  Dr.  Newman  tells  us  encircles  the  base  of  the 
rock  of  St.  Peter.”  R.  W.  Thompson,  in  his 
extended  and  admirable  work  on  “  The  Papacy  and 
the  Civil  Power,”  p.  113,  says  of  the  Jesuits  :  “  They 
are  simply  a  band  of  ecclesiastical  office-holders,  held 
together  by  the  cohesive  power  of  common  ambition 
as  compactly  as  an  army  of  soldiers,  and  are  gov¬ 
erned  by  a  commander-in-chief,  whose  brow  they 
would  adorn  forever  with  a  kingly  crown,  and  who 
wields  the  Papal  lash  over  them  with  imperial  threat- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


63 


enings.  All  these,  with  exceptions,  if  any,  too  few 
to  be  observed ,  are  laboring  with  wonderful  assiduity 
to  educate  the  whole  membership  of  their  church  up 
to  the  point  of  accepting,  without  hesitation  or 
inquiry,  all  the  Jesuit  teaching  in  reference  to  the 
Papacy  as  a  necessary  and  indispensable  part  of  then- 
religious  faith  ;  so  that,  whensoever  the  Papal  order 
shall  be  issued,  they  may  march  their  columns 
unbroken  into  the  Papal  army.  With  blasphemous 
and  fulsome  adulation  of  the  Pope,  applying  to  him 
terms  which  are  due  only  to  God,  they  are  all 
devoted  to  the  object  of  exterminating  Protestant¬ 
ism,  civil  and  religious,  and  extending  the  sceptre 
of  the  Papacy  over  the  world.”  And  yet  again,  Dr. 
L.  DeSantis,  an  ex-priest,  a  Roman  by  birth,  who 
was  once  curate  of  the  Magdalene  parish  in  Rome, 
professor  of  theology  in  the  Roman  University,  and 
qualificator  of  the  Inquisition,  thus  expressed  him¬ 
self:  “From  the  period  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
Roman  Catholicism  has  identified  itself  with  Jesuit¬ 
ism.  That  unscrupulous  order  has  been  known  to 
clothe  itself,  when  occasion  required,  with  new  forms, 
and  to  give  a  convenient  elasticity  to  its  favorite 
maxim  that  the  end  is  everything,  and  all  the  means 
to  attain  it  are  good ;  but,  by  depending  on  the 
skilful  tactics  of  the  society  of  Jesus,  the  court  of 
Rome  has  been  constrained  to  yield  to  it  ascend¬ 
ancy,  confide  her  destiny  to  its  hands,  and  permit  it 
to  direct  her  interest;  and  of  its  control  Jesuitism 
has  availed  itself  in  the  most  absolute  way.  It  has 
constituted  the  powerful  mainspring,  more  or  less 


64 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


concealed,  of  the  whole  Papal  machinery.”  (“  Home, 
Christian  and  Papal.”  ) 

These  are  representative  and  adequate  illustrations 
of  the  opinion  of  the  best  informed  men  of  our  own 
generation,  that  the  Jesuits  are  the  power  behind  the 
Papal  throne.  Their  policy,  as  we  know  from  the 
constitutions,  is  one  of  absolute  imperialism,  the 
subjugation  of  all  government,  all  thought,  all  faith, 
and  all  conscience  to  the  commands  of  the  Pope. 

1.  The  Pope  claims  to  be,  by  divine  right,  absolute 
ruler  over  all  men  and  all  nations,  in  all  things. 
The  decree  of  the  Vatican  Council  of  1870  concerning 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  now  a  dogma  of  the 
Romanist  faith,  is  in  the  following  words  (“The 
Decrees,”  p.  48)  :  “  We  teach  and  define  that  it  is 
a  dogma  divinely  revealed,  that  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra,  that  is,  when  in  dis¬ 
charge  of  the  office  of  pastor  and  doctor  of  all 
Christians,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  apostolic 
authority,  he  defines  a  doctrine  regarding  faith  and 
morals  to  be  held  by  the  universal  church,  by  the 
definite  assistance  promised  to  him  in  blessed  Peter, 
is  possessed  of  that  infallibility  with  which  the  divine 
Redeemer  willed  that  his  church  should  be  endowed, 
for  defining  doctrine  regarding  faith  or  morals,  and 
therefore  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  are 
irreformable  of  themselves,  and  not  from  the  consent 
of  the  church.  But  if  any  one,  which  may  God 
avert,  presume  to  contradict  this  our  definition,  let 
him  be  anathema.”  Still  further,  to  cite  the  con¬ 
densed  form  of  expression  used  by  Mr.  Gladstone 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


65 

(“  Vaticanism,”  p.  141)  :  “  The  council  of  the  Vati¬ 
can  decreed  that  the  Pope  had  from  Christ  immediate 
power  over  the  universal  church ;  that  all  were 
bound  to  obey  him,  of  whatever  right  and  dignity, 
collectively  as  well  as  individually  ;  that  this  duty  of 
obedience  extends  to  all  matters  of  faith  and  morals, 
and  of  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  church  ; 
that  in  all  ecclesiastical  causes  he  is  a  judge  without 
appeal  or  possibility  of  reversal  ;  that  the  definitions, 
both  in  faith  and  morals,  delivered  ex  cathedra ,  are 
irreformable  in  themselves,  and  not  from  the  consent 
of  the  church,  and  are  invested  with  the  infallibility 
granted  by  Christ  in  the  said  subject-matter  to  the 
church.”  Surely,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  a 
convert  now  joining  the  Papal  church,  yielding  to 
the  claims  now  made  upon  him  by  the  authority 
which  he  solemnly  and  with  the  highest  responsi- 
bilility  acknowledges,  is  required  to  surrender  his 
mental  and  moral  freedom,  and  to  place  his  loyalty 
and  civil  duty  at  the  hand  of  another.  Now,  the 
expression  “  faith  and  morals,”  includes  far  more 
then  mere  ecclesiastical  legislation.  Let  a  hi h 
Roman  Catholic  authority  tell  us  how  much  more, 
by  implication,  is  included  in  this  right  of  the  Pope  : 
“  All,  both  pastors  and  faithful,  are  bound  to  sub¬ 
mit,  not  only  in  matters  belonging  to  faith  and 
morals,  but  also  in  those  pertaining  to  the  discipline 
and  government  of  the  church  throughout  the  world. 

This  is  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  faith,  from  which 

P  .  . 

none  can  depart  without  detriment  to  faith  and 
salvation.  We  further  teach  and  declare,  that  the 


66 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Pope,  is  the  supreme  judge  of  the  faithful,  and  that 
in  all  causes  pertaining  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, 
recourse  may  be  had  to  his  judgment ;  and  that 
none  may  rebate  the  judgment  of  the  apostolic  See, 
than  whose  there  is  no  greater  authority  ;  and  that 
it  is  not  lawful  for  any  one  to  sit  in  judgment  on  its 
judgment.” 

Commenting  on  this,  Mr.  Gladstone  says  :  “  Abso¬ 
lute  obedience  is  due  to  the  Pope  at  the  peril  of 
salvation,  not  alone  in  faith,  in  morals,  but  in  all 
things  which  concern  the  discipline  and  government 
of  the  church.  Even  in  the  United  States,  where 
the  severance  between  church  and  state  is  supposed 
to  be  complete,  a  long  catalogue  may  be  drawn  of 
subjects  belonging  to  the  domain  and  competency 
of  the  state,  but  also  undeniably  affecting  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  church  ;  such  as,  by  way  of  example, 
marriage,  burial,  education,  prison-discipline,  blas¬ 
phemy,  poor  relief,  incorporation,  mortmain,  religi¬ 
ous  endowment,  vows  of  celibacy  and  obedience. 
But  on  all  matters  respecting  which  any  Pope  may 
think  proper  to  declare  that  they  concern  either 
faith  or  morals,  or  the  government  or  discipline  of 
the  church,  he  claims,  with  the  approval  of  a  council, 
undoubtedly  ecumenical  in  the  Roman  sense,  the 
absolute  obedience,  at  the  peril  of  salvation,  of  every 
member  of  his  communion.”  (“  Vaticanism,”  p. 
55.)  More  startling  still,  the  Pope  claims  the  right 
to  define  his  own  rights  and  the  limits  of  his  power  ; 
the  sole  unlimited  power  to  interpret  his  own  claims, 
in  such  a  manner  and  by  such  words  as  he  may 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


67 


from  time  to  time  think  tit.  “  Against  such  defini- 
tion  of  his  own  power  there  is  no  appeal  to  reason, 
that  is  rationalism  ;  nor  to  Scripture,  that  is  heresy  : 
nor  to  history,  that  is  private  judgment.  Over  all 
these  things  he  claims  to  be  absolute  judge.”  (“Vati¬ 
canism,”  p.  186.) 

The  Catholic  World  for  August,  1871,  one  of  the 
most  influential  periodicals  of  the  Romish  Church  in 
America,  thus  states  it:  “Each  individual  must 
receive  his  faith  and  law  from  the  church  of  which 
he  is  a  member  by  baptism,  with  unquestioning  sub¬ 
mission  and  obedience  of  the  intellect  and  will. 
Authority  and  obligation  are  correlative  in  end  and 
extent.  We  have  no  right  to  ask  reasons  of  the 
church  [the  Pope  ]  any  more  than  of  Almighty  God, 
as  a  preliminary  to  our  submission.  We  are  to 
take  with  unquestionable  docility  whatever  instruc¬ 
tions  the  church  [that  is  the  Pope]  gives  us.”  How 
this  monstrous  doctrine  is  understood  by  the  Pope 
himself,  whose  understanding  and  words  are  the 
absolute  law  of  the  church,  let  us  see  from  his  own 
words.  Has  he  temporal  and  civil  power?  or  is  he, 
as  a  man  and  an  ecclesiastic,  amenable  to  the  laws 
of  the  country  in  which  he  sojourns?  He  himself 
says,  in  a  Papal  bull,  issued  by  him  in  1860,  that  his 
temporal  power  is  derived  from  God  alone,  and  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  church,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
indispensable  to  him  that  he  shall  possess  such  an 
amount  of  freedom  as  to  be  subject  to  no  civil  power  ; 
that  is,  that  he  must  be  above  all  government  and 
independent  of  them  all,  and  have  that  amount  of 


68 


Romanism  card  the  Republic. 


freedom  and  irresponsibilty  to  constitutions  and  laws 
which  shall  enable  him  to  do  as  he  pleases.  (“The 
Papacy  and  the  Civil  Power,”  p.  137.) 

In  quoting,  as  I  am  about  to  do,  another  Roman 
Catholic  authority,  do  not  fail  to  bear  in  mind  that 
every  book  published  by  Roman  Catholics,  issued  by 
their  publishing  houses,  and  sanctioned  by  their 
prelates,  has  passed  through  the  careful  censorship 
of  their  ecclesiastics,  and  speaks  therefore  with 
authority.  I  now  quote  from  a  tract  printed  for  The 
Catholic  Publication  Society,  Number  46,  on  “The 
Pope’s  Temporal  Power.”  After  having  declared 
that  the  authority  of  the  Pope  exercised  at  Rome  is 
equally  necessary  throughout  the  whole  world,  it 
proceeds  in  form  of  question  and  answer  as  follows  : 
“  How  can  this  independence  of  Civil  authority  be 
secured?  Only  in  one  way.  The  Pope  must  be  a 
sovereign  himself:  No  temporal  prince,  whether 
Emperor,  or  King,  or  President,  or  any  legislative 
body,  can  have  any  lawful  jurisdiction  over  the  Pope. 
What  right  has  the  Pope  to  be  independent  of  every 
civil  ruler?  He  has  it  in  virtue  of  his  dignity  as  the 
Vicar  of  Christ.  Christ  himself  is  King  of  kings; 
but  the  Pope  governs  the  church  in  the  name  of 
Christ  and  as  his  representative.  His  divine  office, 
therefore,  makes  him  superior  to  every  political,  tem¬ 
poral  and  human  government.”  But  that  this  usurper 
of  universal  dominion  may  give  color  to  these  arro¬ 
gant  pretensions  and  claims,  he  endeavors  to  make 
it  appear  that  he  is  not  a  foreign  prince,  attempting 
to  exercise  jurisdiction  out  of  his  proper  realm.  In 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


69 


the  Encyclical  of  Pius  IX.,  dated  Jan.  5,  1873, 
addressed  to  the  Armenian  church,  who  had  objected 
to  his  attempt  to  control  the  appointment  of  their 
bishops,  (  found  in  The  New  Freeman's  Journal  and 
Catholic  Register  April  19,  1873  ),  the  Pope 
declares,  that  “  it  is  false  that  the  Roman  Pontiffs 
have  ever  exceeded  the  limits  of  their  power,  and 
interfered  in  the  civil  administration  of  states  ;  and 
that  they  have  usurped  the  rights  of  princes.  He  can¬ 
not  be  called  a  “  foreigner”  to  any  Christians  or  any 
particular  churches  of  Christians.  Moreover,  those 
who  hesitate  not  to  call  the  Apostolic  See  a  foreign 
power,  fail  in  the  faith  due  to  the  Catholic  Church,  if 
they  are  of  the  number  of  her  sons  ;  or  they  assail  the 
liberty  that  is  her  due,  if  they  do  not  belong  to  her.” 

By  this  subterfuge,  he  would  have  all  Romanists, 
under  pain  and  penalty,  admit  and  affirm  that  he  is 
as  much  a  domestic  imperial  ruler  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  as  he  formerly  was  in  the  Roman 
States  of  Italy.  Nor  has  he  hesitated,  nor  have 
popes  for  a  thousand  years  hesitated,  to  interfere 
with  the  Civil  governments  of  various  countries, 
endeavoring  to  stir  up  seditions,  absolving  subjects 
from  their  allegiance,  deposing  princes,  and  affirming 
absolute  supremacy.  Although  Roman  Catholic 
authorities,  either  ignorant  of  the  facts,  or  wilfully 
perverting  them,  deny  that  the  Pope  assails  and 
attempts  to  overturn  civil  government,  Pius  IX,  pro¬ 
fessedly  speaking  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  and 
concerning  the  governments  of  Italy,  Germany, 
Spain,  Switzerland  and  Brazil,  (which  governments 


70 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


have  deemed  it  expedient  for  their  own  domestic 
peace  and  protection  to  adopt  certain  measures 
which  are  designed  to  increase  the  liberties  of  the 
citizen  who  obeys  the  laws  of  the  state,)  compliments 
the  faithful  of  the  church  on  their  hostility  to  these 
laws,  and  commends  them  for  refusing  to  obey  the 
laws  and  orders  of  the  civil  empire,  rather  than  the 
most  holy  laws  of  their  God  and  of  the  church.  It 
was  Pi  us  IX.  who,  in  1880,  declared  absolutely  null 
and  void  all  the  acts  of  the  government  of  Piedmont 
which  lie  held  prejudicial  to  the  rights  of  religion. 
In  the  same  year,  because  Spain  had  passed  a  law 
which  permitted  the  toleration  of  non-Roman  wor¬ 
ship  and  the  secularization  of  ecclesiastical  property ,  he 
declared,  by  his  own  apostolic  authority,  those  laws 
to  be  abrogated,  totally  null  and  of  no  effect.  So 
also  on  the  22nd  of  June,  1862,  in  another  allocution, 
Pope  Pius  IX.  recited  the  provisions  of  an  Austrian 
law  of  the  previous  December,  which  established 
freedom  of  opinion,  of  the  press,  of  belief,  of  con¬ 
science,  of  education,  and  of  religious  profession, 
which  regulated  matrimonial  jurisdiction  and  other 
matters  ;  and  these  he  declared  “  abominable  ”  laws, 
which  “  have  been  and  shall  be  totally  void  and  with¬ 
out  all  force  whatever.”  In  almost  identical  phrase¬ 
ology  he  attempts  to  annul  the  laws  of  Sardinia,  and 
excommunicates  all  those  who  had  a  hand  in  them  ; 
the  laws  of  Mexico,  which  he  judges  to  interfere  with 
his  rights,  and  declares  them  absolutely  null  and 
void.  While  on  the  17th  of  September,  1863,  in  an 
encyclical  letter  enumerating  proceedings  on  the  part 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


71 


of  the  government  of  New  Granada,  which  had,  among 
other  things,  established  freedom  of  worship,  he 
declares  these  acts  utterly  unjust  and  impious,  and 
by  apostolic  authority  declares  the  whole  null  and 
void  in  the  future  and  in  the  past.”  (Gladstone, 
“Vaticanism,”  p.  176.)  Here  then,  is  the  indictment 
which  we  frame  against  this  most  arrogant  and 
tyrannical  of  rulers.  A  pontiff  claiming  infallibility, 
who  has  condemned  free  speech,  free  writing,  a  free 
press,  toleration  of  nonconformity,  liberty  of  con¬ 
science,  the  study  of  civil  and  philosophical  matters 
in  independence  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  marriage 
unless  contracted  in  the  Romish  church,  the  definition 
by  the  state  of  the  civil  rights  of  the  church, —  who  has 
demanded  for  the  church  therefore  the  title  to  define 
its  own  civil  rights,  together  with  a  divine  right  to 
civil  immunities,  and  a  right  to  use  physical  force  ; 
and  who  has  also  proudly  asserted  that  the  popes  of 
the  middle  ages,  with  their  councils,  did  not  invade 
the  rights  of  princes  ;  as,  for  example,  Gregory  VII. 
of  the  Emperor  Henry  IV.,  Innocent  III.,  of  Raymond 
of  Toulouse;  Paul  III.,  in  deposing  Henry  VIII; 
Pius  V.,  in  performing  the  like  paternal  office  for 
Elizabeth  of  England,  (“  Vaticanism,”  page  56,  ) — 
this  intruder  into  governments,  this  scourge  of  nations, 
this  enemy  of  independence  therefore,  claims,  and 
claims  from  the  month  of  July  1870  onwards,  such 
plenary  authority  over  every  convert  and  member  of 
his  church,  that  he  shall  place  his  loyalty  and  civil 
duty  at  the  mercy  of  another,  that  other  being  him¬ 
self.  It  is  needless  to  say  to  you  who  have  been 


72 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


instructed  in  the  principles  of  Bible  Christianity 
and  of  civil  freedom,  that  this  is  an  assumption  and 
exercise  of  the  most  intolerable  tyranny. 

2.  In  the  Encyclical  and  the  Syllabus  of  1864, 
the  Pope  denounces  some  of  the  dearest  rights  of 
man,  because  they  are  opposed  to  Romish  absolutism. 
To  you  who  are  not  familiar  with  these  terms,  I 
may  say,  that  the  word  Encyclical  is  applied  to  a 
letter  or  communication  written  to  the  general  public, 
the  world  at  large,  the  church  as  a  whole  ;  while  the 
Syllabus  is  a  similar  document,  containing  those  pro¬ 
positions,  or  heads  of  discourse,  which  sum  up  the 
leading  ideas  which  the  Pope  wishes  to  communicate. 
Do  not  forget  that  these  declarations  of  the  Pope,  by 
his  own  definition,  and  the  definition  of  Romish 
councils,  by  the  consent  of  Romish  prelates,  and 
undisputed  and  submitted  to  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  have  all  the  force  of  infallible  authority  and 
dogma.  To  dispute  them,  or  refuse  obedience  to 
them,  is  to  make  a  Roman  Catholic  a  heretic,  to  put 
him  under  the  ban  of  excommunication,  and  outside 
the  pale  of  salvation.  There  is  no  dogma  of  faith 
or  morals,  no  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that 
is  more  binding  upon  the  conscience  and  obe¬ 
dience  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  than  are  these 
Papal  deliverances.  There  is  no  escape  from  yield¬ 
ing  to  them  absolutely,  except  to  break  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  as  a  whole.  With  fearful 
epithets  the  Pope  denounces  those  who  insist  that 
governments  should  not  inflict  penalties  upon  such 
as  violate  the  Catholic  religion.  The  withholding  of 

<—  O 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


73 


this  power  of  punishment  to  protect  the  Catholic 
and  no  other,  he  calls  a  totally  false  notion  of  social 
government,  because  it  leads  to  very  erroneous 
opinions,  most  pernicious  to  the  Catholic  religion 
and  to  the  salvation  of  souls.  These  opinions  be 
calls  insanity,  and  then  proceeds  to  visit  with  his 
fiercest  malediction,  first,  those  who  maintain  the  lib¬ 
erty  of  the  press  ;  second,  or  the  liberty  of  conscience 
and  of  worship;  third,  or  the  liberty  of  speech; 
fourth,  those  who  contend  that  Papal  judgments  and 
decrees  may  without  sin  be  disputed  or  differed  from 
unless  they  treat  of  the  rules  of  faith  or  morals ; 
fifth,  those  who  assign  to  the  state  the  power  to 
define  the  civil  rights  and  province  of  the  church  ; 
sixth,  he  denounces  those  who  hold  that  Roman 
Catholic  Pontiffs  and  ecumenical  councils  have  trans¬ 
gressed  the  limits  of  their  power  and  usurped  the 
rights  of  princes;  seventh,  those  who  declare  that 
the  church  may  not  employ  force  ;  eighth,  or  that 
power  not  inherit  in  the  office  of  the  episcopate,  but 
granted  to  it  by  the  civil  authority,  may  be  with¬ 
drawn  from  it  at  the  discretion  of  that  authority ; 
ninth,  he  anathematizes  those  who  affirm  that  the 
civil  immunity  of  the  church  and  its  minister 
depends  upon  civil  right ;  tenth,  or  that  in  the  conflict 
of  laws,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  the  civil  laws  should 
prevail  ;  eleventh,  or  that  any  method  of  instruc¬ 
tion,  solely  secular,  may  be  approved ;  twelfth,  or 
that  knowledge  of  things  philosophical  and  civil, 
should  decline  to  be  guided  by  divine  and  ecclesias¬ 
tical  authority  ;  thirteenth,  or  that  marriage  is  not, 


74 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


in  its  essence,  a  sacrament,  that  is,  in  the  sense  that 
the  Romish  Church  understands  a  sacrament ;  four¬ 
teenth,  or  that  marriage,  not  sacramentally  con¬ 
tracted,  is  of  binding  force,  [the  Pope’s  own  expla¬ 
nation  of  this  is,  that  all  marriage,  so  called,  outside 
the  Roman  Catholic  church,  is  filthy  concubinage." 
These  are  his  own  words,  and  this  declaration,  it' 
generally  received,  as  he  insists  it  shall  be,  under 
penalty  of  eternal  damnation,  is  a  doctrine  “  horrible 
and  revolting  in  itself,  and  dangerous  to  the  morals 
of  society,  the  structure  of  the  family  and  the  peace 
of  life.”]  ;  fifteenth,  he  anathematizes  those  who  say 
that  the  abolition  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope¬ 
dom  would  be  highly  advantageous  to  the  church  ; 
sixteenth,  or  that  any  other  religion  than  the  Roman 
religion  may  be  established  by  the  state ;  seven¬ 
teenth,  or  that  in  countries  called  Catholic,  the  free 
exercise  of  other  religions  may  be  laudably  allowed  ; 
eighteenth,  or  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  ought  to  come 
to  terms  with  progress,  liberalism,  and  modern 
civilization.  (Gladstone,  “  Vaticanism,”  p.31-2) 
I  count  it  impossible  that  any  American,  on  hearing 
these  declarations  first  read,  should  realize  it  as  con¬ 
ceivable  that,  in  this  generation,  any  ruler,  espec¬ 
ially  one  who  pretends  to  stand  in  place  of  God, 
should  have  the  hardihood,  the  insolence,  the  audac¬ 
ity  to  pronounce  curses  and  anathemas  on  those  who 
maintain  these  principles  of  society  and  government. 
Do  you  not  see,  that  almost  everything  we  hold  dear 
is  here  assailed?  You  are  accursed  of  Rome  who 
maintain  liberty  of  conscience  and  free  worship,  as  do 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


75 


all  Protestants  of  whom  I  have  knowledge  ;  or  that 
freedom  of  speech  which  in  every  age  has  made 
possible  the  advance  of  nations,  the  redress  of  wrongs, 
and  the  progress  of  humanity. 

In  these  documents  and  orders  of  the  Pope,  we 
have  him  indorsing  and  affirming  in  express  terms, 
that  the  Church  of  Pome  has  the  absolute  authority, 
which  no  civil  power  should  transgress,  to  forbid 
freedom  of  worship,  and  exercise  force  to  compel 
men  to  conform  to  that  worship.  He  denonnces 
Bible  societies  as  a  pest,  and  would  stop  all  their 
presses  and  burn  all  their  books,  if  he  had  the  power. 
He  re-affirms  the  decree  of  his  predecessor,  Clement 
XII.,  that  all  his  subjects  be  prohibited  from  becom¬ 
ing  affiliated  with  any  assembly  of  free-masons  or 
rendering  aid,  succor,  counsel  or  retreat  to  any 
members  of  that  society  under  penalty  of  death,  and 
pronounces  a  like  penalty  upon  those  who  fail  to 
denounce  and  reveal  all  that  they  know  concerning 
that  association.  And  here,  contrary  to  every  prin¬ 
ciple  of  just  government,  and  in  harmony  with  the 
most  dreadful  abuses  and  persecutions  of  the  middle 
ages,  the  Pope  affirms  that  Romish  ecclesiastics  shall 
not  be  amenable  to  the  civil  law  —  a  direful  doctrine  ; 
and  would  evoke  again  the  arm  of  the  Inquisition,  a 
power  never  repudiated  by  the  Romish  Church,  and 
claimed  and  used  by  it  wherever  it  is  all-powerful, 
to  blot  out  all  other  than  Roman  Catholic  worship 
from  the  face  of  the  earth.  I  confess  that  language 
is  too  weak  to  condemn  these  claims  to  power  on  the 
part  of  any  body  of  men.  But  these  are  the  official 


7fi  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

expositions  of  the  constitution  of  Romanism,  these 
are  the  dogmas  of  this  church,  this  is  the  authority 
which  all  Romanists  are  bound  to  obey  under  penalty 
of  being  denounced  as  heretics  ;  to  this  the  Romish 
priesthood  have  lent  themselves  ;  and  this  power,  as 
incapable  of  being  reconciled  to  the  freedom  of  this 
nation  as  a  rattlesnake  within  the  folds  of  your  dress 
of  being  reconciled  to  the  safety  and  health  of  yonr 
body,  is  the  power  whose  advance  we  attempt  to 
stay,  whose  pretensions  we  disclose,  and  on  whose 
machinations  we  endeavor  to  throw  the  light. 

3.  Perhaps  you  now  inquire,  Do  Roman  Catholic 
hierarchs  and  prelates  realize  that  these  are  the 
principles  of  the  Papacy  to  which  they  are  sworn  ? 
Is  it  possible  that  men  live  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  this  country  who  are  believers  in  such 
tyranny,  and  waiting  under  oath  to  spread  it?  It  is 
to  be  hoped  that  they  do  not  all  realize  it ;  and  yet 
we  have  most  adequate  proof  that  the  chief  among 
them  do.  Bishop  Gilmour,  in  his  Lenten  letter  of 
March  1873,  said  :  Nationalities  must  be  subordi¬ 
nate  to  religion,  and  we  must  learn  that  we  are 
Catholics  first  and  citizens  next.  God  is  above  man, 
and  the  church  above  the  state.”  Cardinal  McClos- 
key,  who  as  Cardinal  of  Rome  is  a  foreign  prince 
exercising  authority  in  the  United  States,  contrary 
to  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  says  :  The  Catho¬ 
lics  of  the  United  States  are  as  strongly  devoted  to 
the  sustenance  and  maintenance  of  the  temporal 
power  of  the  Holy  Father  as  Catholics  in  any  part 
of  the  world,  and  if  it  should  be  necessary  to  prove 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


77 


it  by  acts,  they  are  ready  to  do  so.”  What  does  he 
mean  by  this  ?  In  a  sermon  preached  when  he  was 
archbishop,  Cardinal  Manning  put  the  following 
sentences  in  the  mouth  of  the  Pope  :  “I  acknowledge 
no  civil  power,  I  am  the  subject  of  no  prince,  and  I 
claim  more  than  this ;  I  claim  to  be  the  supreme 
judge  arid  director  of  the  conscience  of  men,  of  the 
peasant  that  tills  the  fields,  and  of  the  prince  that 
sits  upon  the  throne,  of  the  household  that  lives  in 
the  shade  of  privacy,  and  the  legislator  that  makes 
laws  for  kingdoms ;  I  am  the  sole,  last,  supreme 
judge  of  what  is  right  and  wrong.”  He  also  says  : 
“Moreover,  I  declare,  affirm,  define  and  pronounce 
it  to  be  necessary  to  salvation  for  every  human 
creation  to  be  subject  to  the  Roman  Pontiff.”  What 
this  subjection  means  we  may  learn  from  Cardinal 
Bellarmine.  He  says  :  “  If  the  Pope  should  err  by 
enjoining  vices  or  forbidding  virtues,  the  Church 
would  be  obliged  to  believe  vices  to  be  good  and 
virtues  bad,  unless  it  would  sin  against  conscience.” 
Horrible  and  monstrous !  Every  bishop  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  in  America  and  through- 
out  the  world,  and  every  archbishop,  has  taken 
an  oath  of  devotion  ®to  the  Papacy,  in  which  occur 
the  following  words  :  “I  will  from  henceforward  be 
faithful  and  obedient  to  St.  Peter,  the  apostle,  to  the 
Holy  Roman  Church,  and  to  our  Lord  the  Pope,  and 
to  his  successors  canonically  entering.  That  counsel 
with  which  they  shall  entrust  by  themselves,  their 
messengers  or  letters,  I  will  not,  knowingly,  reveal 
to  any,  to  their  prejudice :  I  will  help  them  to 


78 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


define  and  keep  the  Roman  Papacy  and  the  royalties 
of  St.  PeJ:er,  saving  my  Lord,  against  all  men.  The 
rights,  honors,  privileges  and  authority  of  the  holy 
Romish  church,  of  our  Lord  the  Pope  and  his  afore¬ 
said  successors,  I  will  endeavor  to  preserve,  defend, 
increase  and  advance.  I  will  not  be  in  any  council, 
action  or  authority,  in  which  shall  be  applied,  against 
our  said  Lord  and  the  said  Roman  Church,  anything 
to  the  hurt  or  prejudice  of  their  persons,  right, 
honor,  state  or  power  ;  and  if  I  shall  know  any  such 
thing  to  be  tried  or  agitated  by  any  whatsoever,  I 
will  hinder  it  to  my  utmost,  and,  as  soon  as  I  can, 
will  signify  it  to  our  said  Lord,  or  to  some  other  by 
whom  it  may  come  to  his  knowledge.  The  rules  of 
the  Holy  Fathers,  the  apostolic  decrees,  ordinances 
or  disposals,  reservations,  provisions  and  mandates, 
I  will  observe  with  all  my  might;  and  cause  to  be 
observed  by  others.  Heretics ,  schismatics  and  rebels 
to  our  said  Lord ,  or  his  aforesaid  successors,  I  will, 
to  my  utmost,  persecute  and  oppose ,”  etc.  (Dowling’s 
‘‘History  of  Romanism,”  pages  615-1(3). 

Here,  then,  is  the  oath  of  allegiance  by  which 
these  dignitaries  of  the  Romish  church  are  absolutely 
pledged  to  enforce  the  doctrine^of  the  encyclical  and 
syllabus :  to  oppose  and  persecute  all  who,  like  you 
and  me,  reject  those  doctrines,  and  to  observe  the 
profoundest  secrecy  in  all  things  where  they  think 
the  interests  of  the  Pope  will  be  subserved. 

And  more  than  this,  if  it  were  possible  for  conspir¬ 
acy,  hatred  of  free  institutions  and  of  Protestantism, 
and  antagonism  to  the  word  of  God  and  the  spirit  of 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


79 


progress,  to  go  farther  than  these  have  already  gone 
in  their  allegiance  to  this  hateful  and  tyrannous 
power,  they  have  done  so  in  yielding  themselves  up 
to  believe,  that  not  only  the  past  declarations  of  the 
Pope  shall  absolutely  control  their  actions,  but,  if 
perchance  at  any  time  in  the  future  he  could  exceed 
these  limits  of  oppression,  tyranny  and  hatred  of 
human  rights,  by  any  mandate  whatsoever,  they  would 
also  obey  that.  The  Catholic  World  of  Aug.  1871, 
in  an  article  upon  Infallibility,  sets  this  doctrine  forth 
thus:  “  A  Catholic  must  not  only  believe  what  the 
church  now  proposes  to  his  belief,  but  be  ready  to 
believe  whatever  she  may  hereafter  propose  :  he  must 
therefore  be  ready  to  give  up  any  or  all  of  his  pre¬ 
vious  opinions  so  soon  as  they  are  condemned  and 
prescribed  by  competent  authority.” 

It  is  some  comfort  to  find  that  an  Irish  Catholic  ex- 
Congressman  of  Chicago,  with  a  manliness  which  we 
trust  exists  in  the  breasts  of  thousands  of  others  of 
our  fellow-citizens,  has  dared  to  say  :  “  The  Pope  of 
Rome  [  speaking  of  his  interference  with  Irish  affairs 
of  late,]  has  no  power  to  damn  me,  or  any  other  Cath¬ 
olic.  His  latest  utterance  is  an  outrage  on  Irish- 
Catholic  manhood  and  womanhood.  The  Pope  of 
Rome,  an  Italian  prince,  with  an  Italian  policy  to 
carry  out,  at  no  matter  what  expense  to  the  other 
Catholic  people,  is  a  fair  subject  for  Irish  criticism, 
and  it  is  from  this  standpoint  I  criticize  him.  I  am 
a  Catholic,  I  am  a  believer  in  the  Catholic  church  ; 
but  I  am  an  Irishman  and  not  an  Italian,  and  I  am 
not  to  be  sacrificed  for  the  needs  of  Italian  diplom- 


80 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


ac y.”  Such  statements  would  multiply,  and  even 
stronger  than  this,  if  those  Romanists  who  have 
imbibed,  to  some  extent,  the  free  spirit  of  Protestant 
America,  would  intelligently  consider  what  the 
demands  of  the  Papal  power  are  upon  them,  and  to  what 
they  would  be  reduced  if  they  submitted  to  the  prin¬ 
ciples  on  which  it  rules. 

4.  I  cannot  leave  this  subject  without  calling  your 
attention  to  the  utter  absurdity  and  blasphemy  of  the 
Papal  claim.  This  might  be  done  and  proofs  fur¬ 
nished  at  great  length  ;  but  I  am  compelled  to  be 
brief,  only  for  lack  of  time.  The  proofs  are  most 
ample  and  adequate.  You  have  only  to  read  the 
history  of  the  Popes,  as  written  by  Hal  lam,  Ranke, 
or  any  of  the  greatest  historians  of  the  world,  to 
readily  see  that  no  class  of  men  in  the  annals  of  time 
could  more  inappropriately  assume  to  be  infallible, 
much  less  divine,  than  these  very  Popes  of  Rome. 
Many  of  these  infallible  Popes  have  been  as  infamous 
for  the  laxity  of  their  morals  and  the  enormity  of 
their  crimes,  as  they  have  been  for  the  wickedness  of 
their  pretensions.  As  an  example  of  folly,  Pope 
Urban  VIII.  infallibly  denied  the  Copernican  theory 
propounded  by  Galileo,  that  the  sun  is  the  centre  of 
the  solar  system,  and  that  the  earth  moves  around  it. 
The  ridiculousness  of  this  is  not  so  great  as  of  the 
Popes  who  have  antagonized  one  another  even  to  the 
extent  of  murder,  both  infallible  [  ?  ]  ;  of  the  Popes 
who  have  blessed  what  their  predecessors  have  anath¬ 
ematized,  and  have  cursed  that  on  which  their  pre¬ 
decessors  pronounced  their  benediction  ;  of  the  Popes 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


81 


who  have  contended  and  protested  against  each  other 
at  Rome  and  Avignon,  when  two  Papal  courts  were 
being  carried  on  at  once  by  rival  Popes.  Think  of 
Pope  John  XXIII.,  who  at  the  Council  of  Constance 
was  dethroned  from  the  Papal  chair  because  of  the 
universal  detestation  felt  for  his  crimes, —  crimes  no 
greater  than  those  of  Benedict  VIII.,  or  a  score  of 
others  who  might  be  named. 

Yet  all  these,  according  to  the  law  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  however  infamous  their  lives,  are 
equally  infallible,  and  are  permitted  to  exercise  their 
official  powers  over  cardinals,  archbishops,  bishops 
or  priests,  whatever  the  impurity  of  their  behavior 
or  the  wickedness  of  thier  conduct,  and  after  death 
are  canonized  as  “  saints.”  And  as  if  it  were  not 
enough  that  the  characters  of  so  many  of  these  Popes 
have  been  as  vile  as  their  pretensions  have  been 
absurd,  it  is  only  too  true  that  the  Papal  court  which 
has  surrounded  them,  the  advisers  who  have  largely 
controlled  them  until  the  present  time,  have  in  many 
instances  been  guilty  of  like  infamies  with  the  worst 
of  the  Popes. 

Of  Cardinal  Antonelli,  Avho  was  prime  minister  of 
Pius  IX.,  a  French  Catholic  writer  thus  speaks: 
“  He  was  born  in  a  den  of  thieves  ;  he  seems  a  min¬ 
ister  engrafted  on  a  savage.  All  classes  of  society 
hated  him  equally.”  And  of  the  Papacy,  under  his 
influence  and  direction,  Gattina  says,  after  speak¬ 
ing  of  “  the  thefts,  the  villanies,  the  rudeness  of  this 
cardinal”:  “Under  Antonelli’s  guidance  it  is  like 
the  subterranean  sewers  of  large  cities ;  it  carries  all 


82 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 

the  filth.  When  it  is  stopped  and  filtered,  it  spreads 
infection  and  death.”  No  wonder  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  hierarchy  would  forbid  the  study  of  history 
in  the  public  schools,  unless  that  history  has  passed 
through  their  sifting ;  for  it  must  largely,  if  true,  be 
a  history  of  the  infamy  of  the  court  of  Rome,  of  the 
scandalous  wickedness  of  the  Popes,  and  of  the  high¬ 
handed  political  measures  which  have  been  suggested 
and  advanced  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  I 
close  with  a  few  reflections  on  the  predictions  of 
Roman  Catholics  as  to  the  Romish  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  on  the  growth  of  Romanism  among 
us,  which,  considering  the  policy  which  has  been  out¬ 
lined,  may  well  startle  and  alarm  all  thoughtful 
hearers.  Father  Hecker  says,  that  “  ere  long  there 
is  to  be  a  state  religion  in  this  country,  and  that  state 
religion  is  to  be  Roman  Catholic.”  The  Boston  Pilot 
says:  “The  man  to-day  is  living  who  will  see  the 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  American  continent 
Roman  Catholics.” 

A  former  Bishop  of  Cincinnatti  declares,  that  “  effect¬ 
ual  plans  are  in  operation  to  give  us  a  complete  vic¬ 
tory  over  Protestantism.”  The  Bishop  of  Charlestown 
affirms,  that  “  within  thirty  years  the  Protestant 
heresy  will  come  to  an  end.”  While  Pope  Gregory 
XVI.,  a  half  a  century  ago,  declared  :  “  Out  of  the 
Roman  States,  there  is  no  country  where  I  am  Pope, 
except  in  the  United  States.  (  Strong’s  “  Our 
Country,”  page  55 . ) 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  United  States 
is  growing  with  great  rapidity.  In  1800,  the  Roman- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


83 


ist  population  was  100,000  ;  in  1884,  it  was  over  six 
and  one-half  millions, — -  had  increased  sixty-fold  ;  at 
the  beginning  of  the  century  there  was  one  Romanist 
to  every  fifty-three  of  the  population ;  in  1850,  one 
to  fourteen  ;  in  1870,  one  to  eight  and  one-half;  in 
1880,  one  to  seven  and  seven-tenths.  Wonderful  as 
has  been  the  growth  of  the  country,  the  Romanist 
church  has  grown  more  rapidly.  From  1800  to  1880, 
the  population  has  increased  nine-fold  ;  the  member¬ 
ship  of  all  evangelical  churches,  twenty-seven  fold; 
and  the  Romanist  population,  sixty-three  fold.  In 
1850,  the  Romanist  church  was  nearly  one-half  as 
lar«;e  as  all  the  Evangelical  Protestant  churches  ;  let 
us  look  at  their  relative  progress  since  that  time. 
From  1830  to  1880,  the  population  increased  116  per 
cent.  ;  the  communicants  of  evangelical  churches,  one 
and  a  half  times  as  fast,  or  185  percent.  ;  the  Roman¬ 
ist  population,  294  per  cent.,  nearly  two  and  a  half 
times  as  rapidly  as  the  population.  From  1850  to 
1880,  the  number  of  Evangelical  churches  increased 
125  per  cent.  ;  during  the  same  period,  Romanist 
churches  increased  447  per  cent.,  nearly  four  times 
as  fast.  From  1870  to  1880,  a  period  of  ten  years, 
the  churches  of  all  Evangelical  denominations 
increased  49  per  cent.,  while  Romanist  churches  mul¬ 
tiplied  74  per  cent.,  one  and  a  half  times  as  fast. 
During  the  same  period  the  ministers  of  evangelical 
churches  increased  in  number  46  per  cent.  Romish 
priests,  61  per  cent.  From  1850  to  1870,  evangeli¬ 
cal  ministers  increased  86  per  cent.  ;  priests,  204  per 
cent.,  or  as  2£  to  1.  From  1850  to  1880,  minis- 


84 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


ters  increased  173  per  cent.,  and  priests  391  per 
cent.,  more  than  double.  Rome,  with  characteristic 
foresight,  is  concentrating  her  strength  in  the  Western 
territories.  As  the  West  is  to  dominate  the  nation, 
she  intends  to  dominate  the  West.  In  the  United 
States,  a  little  less  than  one-eighth  of  the  population 
is  Romanist,  in  the  territories,  taken  together,  more 
than  one-third.  (Dr.  Strong’s  “  Our  Country.”) 

In  the  whole  country  there  are  not  quite  two-thirds 
as  many  Romanists  as  there  are  members  of  the  Evan¬ 
gelical  churches.  Not  including  Arizona  and  New 
Mexico,  which  have  a  large  native  Romanist  popula¬ 
tion,  the  six  remaining  territories  had,  in  1880,  four 
times  as  many  Romanists  as  there  were  members  of 
Protestant  denominations  collectively.  And  includ¬ 
ing  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  Rome  had  eighteen 
times  as  many  as  all  Protestant  bodies.  When 
the  Jesuits  were  driven  out  of  Berlin,  they  declared 
that  they  would  plant  themselves  in  the  Eastern 
'  territories  of  America ;  this  they  have  done,  and 
under  the  absolute  dictation  of  the  Pope,  they  are 
endeavoring  to  spread  the  intolerant,  persecuting 
monarchy  which  we  have  reviewed.  Whoever  fails 
to  note  their  purpose,  and  whoever  is  indifferent  to 
their  designs,  must  be  willing  to  be  a  slave  to  a  foreign 
potentate  and  to  see  the  hopes  of  the  world  uprooted 
in  the  subjugation  of  America  to  the  merciless  tyranny 
of  the  Inquisition. 

I  have  stated  the  actual  truth  so  mildly  that  I 
almost  ought  to  apologize.  For  every  fact  and  cita¬ 
tion  that  I  have  brought,  for  every  audacious  Papal 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


85 


claim,  every  authorized  Romanistic  principle  contrary 
to  our  liberties,  for  every  historic  proof  of  the  wicked¬ 
ness  and  immorality  of  Popes,  I  can  cite,  from  equally 
unimpeachable  sources,  live  times  as  many  more. 

Thus,  before  the  American  Christian  public,  as  the 
high  court  of  jurisdiction,  I  indict  the  Pope  of  Rome 
as  the  representative  of  the  Papal  policy,  the  repre¬ 
sentative  whom  they  put  forward  to  stand  for  the 
whole  church  in  its  antagonism  to  civil  and  religious 
freedom,  against  which  he  has  committed  high  crimes 

7  O  O 

and  misdemeanors. 

I  impeach  him  in  the  name  of  liberty  of  conscience, 
whose  rights  he  has  denied  ;  I  impeach  him  in  the 
name  of  freedom  of  worship,  whose  temples  he  would 
close  ;  I  impeach  him  in  the  name  of  a  free  press  and 
free  speech,  whose  voice  he  would  smother  in  the 
smoke  of  fire  and  faggot ;  I  impeach  him  in  the  name 
of  civil  liberty,  over  whose  just  laws  he  has  pro¬ 
claimed  the  sovereignty  of  Romish  councils  ;  I  impeach 
him  in  the  name  of  the  marriage-bond  of  the  major¬ 
ity  of  the  happy  households  of  the  Christian  world, 
which  he  has  stigmatized  as  “filthy  concubinage,” 
because  not  contracted  in  the  Romish  church ;  I 
impeach  him  in  the  name  of  Protestantism,  which 
he  calls  “  heresy”  and  against  which  he  invokes  the 
persecution  of  the  civil  government  and  the  tortures  of 
the  Inquisition.  In  the  name  of  progress,  which  he 
has  tried  in  vain  to  stay;  of  modern  civilization, 
with  which  he  cannot  be  reconciled  ;  in  the  name  of 
the  free  and  enlightened  governments  of  the  world, 
against  whose  most  beneficient  laws  he  has  hurled 


86 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

his  anathemas ;  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Bible, 
whose  free  circulation  he  has  pronounced  a  pest ;  in 
the  name  of  free  America,  whose  overthrow  he  has 
plotted  ;  in  the  name  of  Almighty  God,  whose  pre¬ 
rogatives  he  has  blaphemously  usurped  :  in  the  name 
of  all  these,  I  impeach  the  Pope  and  the  hierarchy 
which  dominate  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and 
summon  them  to  the  bar  of  oppressed  humanity  and 
of  Divine  Justice. 


f 


\ 


« 


Sermon  IF 


ROMANISM  ANTAGONISTIC  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION 

AND  THE  LAWS. 


“  Behold,  I  have  taught  you  statutes  and  judgments,  even  as 
the  Lord  my  God  commanded  me,  that  ye  shall  do  so  in  the  land 
whither  you  go  to  possess  it.  Keep,  therefore,  and  do  them; 
for  this  is  your  wisdom  and  your  understanding  in  the  sight  of 
the  nations,  which  shall  hear  all  these  statutes  and  say,  Surely 
this  great  nation  is  a  wise  and  understanding  people.  For  what 
nation  is  there  so  great,  who  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them,  as  the 
Lord  our  God  is  in  all  things  that  we  call  upon  him  for  ?  ”  — 
Deut.  4:  5,  6. 

All  the  earlier  parts  of  the  Christian  Scriptures 
relate  nearly  as  much  to  national  as  to  personal 
life.  The  origin,  consolidation,  liberation  and 
nationalization  of  the  people  of  Israel  shows  the 
interest  of  Almighty  God  in  the  forms  of  govern¬ 
ment  of  great  peoples.  Our  text  exalts  the  char¬ 
acter  of  those  laws  and  political  principles  which 
became  the  basis  of  the  Jewish  state.  Every¬ 
where  through  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  we  find  patriotic  devotion  to  the  nation 
mingled  with  profoundest  reverence  for  God.  The 
patriarchs  who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  Jewish 
state,  the  law-givers,  judges  and  prophets  who  came 
after  them,  all  are  animated  with  ardent  devotion  to 
their  country.  This  is  particularly  noticeable  in  the 


88 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


words  of  the  prophets,  especially  in  the  greater 
prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel ;  who,  like 
Moses,  the  law-giver,  were  as  truty  statesmen  as  they 
were  teachers  of  religious  truth.  And  it  might  truth- 
fully  he  said,  that  the  Bible  is  a  book  of  patriotism. 
While  the  Jewish  people  were  called  the  chosen  of 
God,  it  is  scarcely  less  evident  that  our  own  country, 
owing  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  its  birth  and 
the  origin  of  its  laws,  is  in  some  sense  a  chosen 
people.  When  or  where  was  ever  a  nation  founded, 
or  what  nation  has  ever  been  so  looked  to  by  all  the 
world  as  holding  a  providential  place  for  the  exalta¬ 
tion  of  all  peoples  and  the  advancement  of  liberty 
throughout  the  earth?  It  may  be  that,  like  the 
Hebrew  nation,  we  shall  not  wholly  fulfill  our  mis¬ 
sion  ;  but  certainly,  it  behooves  us  to  put  forth  every 
endeavor  so  to  do.  If  this  nation  shall  do  as  the 
Israelites  were  counselled  to  do  ;  if  we  shall  obey  the 
statutes  and  judgments  which  God  has  given  us  ;  if 
it  shall  be  our  wisdom  and  understanding  to  make 
these  laws  and  this  constitution,  which  are  praised 
throughout  the  world,  the  corner-stone  of  our  future, 
then  it  can  be  said  of  us,  that  there  is  no  nation  so 
great  that  hath  judgments  and  statutes  so  righteous 
as  all  this  law  which  has  been  left  us  by  our  fathers, 
under  which  we  have  hitherto  lived. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  only 
extraordinary  in  its  quality,  but  equally  so  in  its 
history.  As  a  basis  of  national  life,  it  has  received 
the  encomiums  of  the  most  advanced  and  liberal 
statesmen  throughout  the  world.  It  could  not  be 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


89 


called,  in  its  origin,  a  theory  of  government  merely; 
although  no  nation  before  had  a  constitution  like  it. 
But  it  was  based  on  the  wisest  maxims  of  political 
philosophy,  on  the  profoundest  views  of  human 
rights,  on  the  highest  law  of  obligation  to  God  in 
the  relations  of  men,  and  was  deduced  from  the  his¬ 
tory  of  other  nations  and  other  peoples  in  their 
failure  to  meet  the  public  want,  and  to  create  a 
happy  and  free  people. 

Although  the  document  which  we  call  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  United  States  is  not  perfect  in  all  its 
parts,  and  has  been  amended  from  time  to  time  by  the 
wisdom  of  the  whole  body  politic,  yet,  through  the 
mercy  of  God  and  his  overruling  providence,  great 
good  has  come  out  of  it.  As  a  basis  of  laws,  itmav 
be  said  that  those  of  no  other  country  furnish  so 
broad  a  foundation  for  universal  happiness  and  pros¬ 
perity.  If  we  contrast  this  fundamental  law  with 
that  of  Russia  under  an  absolute  monarch,  or  of 
Germany  under  a  monarchy  scarcely  less  abso¬ 
lute  —  if  we  compare  it  with  the  government  of  Eng¬ 
land,  whose  constitution  is  a  cumbrous  mass  of  pre¬ 
cedents,  giving  privileges  to  a  state  church  and  a 
hereditary  nobility  —  indeed,  if  we  compare  it  with 
the  constitution  of  any  land,  we  may  justly  affirm  in 
words,  what  is  emphatically  declared  by  the  immense 
immigration  which  has  come  into  this  country,  that 
our  Constitution  is  recognized  as  the  best,  and  its 
practical  fruitage  is  the  richest.  The  noblest  com¬ 
ment  that  can  be  made  upon  our  system  of  govern¬ 
ment  in  the  United  States,  upon  its  authority  and  its 


90 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

\ 

laws,  is  seen  in  the  extraordinary  growth  and  pros¬ 
perity  not  only  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  but  of  the 
states  and  families  of  the  nation.  Surely,  such  a 
■country,  created  out  of  such  laws,  is  worth  our  care. 
The  subversion  of  this  government,  by  internal  foes  or 
by  external  assailants,  could  but  entail  calamity  upon 
the  whole  human  race,  and  we  are  sure  that  the 
government  can  never  be  subverted,  nor  its  adminis- 
tration  overthrown,  unless  the  principles  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  are  abandoned  to  the  assaults  of  open 
enemies,  or  the  treachery  of  hidden  foes.  Such 
abandonment,  either  through  our  indifference  or  our 
feebleness,  must  inevitably  be  followed  by  the  over¬ 
throw  of  our  privileges  and  the  ruin  of  all  our  pros¬ 
perity. 

Over  a  single  word  or  clause  in  our  Constitution 
we  fought  a  terrific  civil  war.  That  word  was 
“Union.”  To  prove  ourselves  a  Nation,  to  vindi¬ 
cate  that  one  idea  of  the  constitution,  we  spent  our 
thousands  of  millions  of  dollars  and  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  lives;  and  yet  no  intelligent  son  of 
America  to-day  hesitates  to  affirm  that  all  this 
expenditure  was  not  too  much  to  preserve  and  vin¬ 
dicate  the  unitv  of  the  United  States,  Can  we  doubt 

«y 

that  other  portions  of  our  Constitution  which  relate 
to  the  rights  of  citizens  and  their  protection,  are 
equally  worthy  of  defence?  But  no  words  of  praise 
from  us  are  needed  to  vindicate  this  all-important 
document,  since  scarcely  a  statesman  of  our  country, 
or  of  any  liberal  government  lives,  but  has  assisted  in 
voicing  the  universal  judgment  of  freemen  in  praise 
of  our  Constitution. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


91 


Against  this ,  the  most  open,  pronounced  enemy  of 
every  principle  of  the  United  States,  is  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  Whether  we  speak  of  the  source 
of  political  power  as  defined  in  our  Constitution,  of 
the  supremacy  of  that  law  or  of  its  several  parts  with 
their  theory  of  human  rights,  or  even  when  we  speak 
of  the  formation  of  the  executive  and  legislative  bodies 
of  the  government  as  embodied  in  its  provisions,  or 
the  administration  of  justice  —  every  one  of  these  par¬ 
ticulars  is  denounced,  assailed  and  anathematized  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  And,  since  that  church 
has  come  to  claim  supremacy  over  at  least  one-tenth, 
perhaps  one-eighth,  of  our  population,  and  to  exer¬ 
cise  political  power  through  the  manipulation  of 
resident  prelates  in  the  interests  of  a  foreign  poten¬ 
tate,  it  is  high  time  that  we  proceed  to  show  its  real 
hostility,  and  to  protect,  while  we  may,  the  Palladium 
of  our  liberties. 

1.  “We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,”  says 
the  Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  “in  order  to  pro¬ 
mote  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure 
domestic  tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  de¬ 
fence,  promote  the  general  welfare  and  secure  the 
blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do 
ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United 
States  of  America.”  Here  is  a  plain  declaration  that 
the  people,  under  God,  are  supreme,  that  they  are  the 
source  of  political  power;  that  they,  by  their  repre¬ 
sentatives  and  in  their  capacity  ;is  citizens,  have  the 
right  given  of  God,  of  self-government.  To  this 
agrees  the  form  of  many  of  the  state  constitutions ; 


92 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


as  for  instance,  that  of  the  State  of  New  York,  which 
announces  the  same  doctrine  in  these  words  :  “  We, 
the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York,  grateful  to 
Almighty  God  for  our  freedom,  in  order  to  secure  its 
blessings,  do  establish  this  constitution.” 

Against  this  first  principle  of  our  national  govern¬ 
ment,  the  Papacy  announces  the  Pope  as  the  origin 
of  the  rights  of  states,  as  the  supreme  judge  in  all 
matters  of  law,  and  affirms,  as  we  showed  in  the  pre¬ 
vious  discourse,  everywhere  the  supremacy  of  the 
church  and  its  ecclesiastics  over  the  state  and  its  peo¬ 
ple.  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  the  present  pope,  says,  in  his 
encyclical  ;  “  It  is  not  lawful  to  follow  one  rule  in 
private  conduct  and  another  in  the  government  of  the 
state  :  to  wit,  that  the  authority  of  the  church  should 
be  observed  in  private  life,  but  rejected  in  state  mat¬ 
ters.”  Says  Pius  IX. ,  in  his  Syllabus  :  “It  is  an  error 
to  believe  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  can  and  ought  to 
reconcile  himself  to  and  agree  with  progress,  liberal¬ 
ism  and  civilization,  as  lately  introduced.”  This 
demand  was  ‘sufficiently  exposed  when  previously 
considered.  Note  now  another  particular  in  which 
the  Romish  church  is  in  direct  antagonism  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

2.  The  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  the  final  test  of  civil  duty.  In  substantiation 
of  this  fact,  we  observe  that  the  final  court  of  appeal 
in  America  is  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  whose  chief  function  is,  to  decide  whether  a 
law  is  constitutional  or  not.  If  any  law  made  by 
the  several  states,  or  by  any  one  of  them,  is  found  to 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


93 


be  inharmonious  with  the  Constitution,  it  is  pro¬ 
nounced  null  and  void.  And  so  the  most  dignified 
court  in  the  world  recognizes  as  its  law  our  Consti- 
tution. 

But  Romanism  confesses  no  such  supremacy  in  any 
civil  law  or  in  any  legislation.  The  only  law  which 
shall  govern  the  Pope  is  his  own  will,  and  the  will 
ot  the  Pope  is  the  law  of  church  and  state. 

He  can  abrogate  constitutions,  pronounce  legisla¬ 
tive  enactments  null  and  void,  call  upon  all  Roman¬ 
ists  to  break  and  violate  such  laws,  and  has  repeat¬ 
edly  commended  his  followers  for  setting  the  laws  of 
states  at  defiance.  In  an  encyclical,  the  Pope  says: 
“The  Romish  church  has  a  right  to  exercise  its  au¬ 
thority  without  any  limits  set  to  it  by  the  civil  power : 
the  Pope  and  the  priests  ought  to  have  dominion  over 
temporal  affairs :  the  Romish  church  and  her  ecclesi¬ 
astics  have  a  right  to  immunity  from  civil  law  :  in 
case  of  conflict  between  ecclesiastical  and  civil  powers 
the  ecclesiastical  powers  ought  to  prevail.”  (Strong’s 
“  Our  Country,”  page  50.)  “The  Romish  church 
alone  arrogates  to  herself  the  right  to  speak  to  the 
state  not  as  a  subject  but  as  a  superior ;  not  as  plead¬ 
ing  the  right  of  a  conscience  staggered  by  the  fear  of 
sin,  but  as  a  vast  Incorporation,  setting  up  a  rival 
law  against  the  state  in  the  state’s  own  domain,  and 
claiming  for  it,  with  a  higher  sanction,  the  title  to 
similar  coercive  means  of  enforcement.  The  Pope 
himself  is  foreign  and  not  responsible  to  the  law. 
The  large  part  of  his  power  is  derived  from  foreign 
sources.  He  claims  to  act,  and  acts,  not  by  individ- 


94 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


uals  but  on  masses.  He  claims  to  teach  them,  so 
often  as  he  chooses,  what  to  do  at  each  point  of  their 
contact  with  the  laws  of  their  country.  The  Pope 
takes  into  his  own  hand  the  power  which  he  thinks 
the  state  to  have  misused.  Not  merely  does  he  aid 
or  direct  the  consciences  of  those  who  object,  but  he 
even  overrules  the  consciences  of  those  who  approve. 
Above  all,  he  pretends  to  annul  the  law  itself.  The 
right  to  override  all  the  states  of  the  world,  and  to 
cancel  their  acts,  within  limits  assignable  from  time 
to  time  to,  but  not  bv  those  states,  and  the  title  to 
do  battle  with  them,  as  soon  as  it  may  be  practicable 
and  expedient,  with  their  own  proper  weapon  and 
last  sanction  of  exterior  force,  has  been  sedulously 
brought  more  and  more  into  view  of  late  years.  The 
centre  of  the  operation  has  lain  in  the  Society  of 
Jesuits.  The  infallible,  that  is  virtually  divine,  title 
of  command,  and  the  absolute,  that  is  the  uncondi¬ 
tional  duty  to  obey,  in  1870,  were  promulgated  to  an 
astonished  world.”  (Gladstone,  “  Vaticanism,”  pages 
172-74.) 

The  American  prelates  of  the  Romish  church, 
assembled  in  the  Baltimore  council,  commenting  on 
the  authority  of  the  Papal  Syllabus,  affirm  that  it 
does  not  appertain  to  the  civil  power  to  define  what 
are  the  rights  and  limits  within  which  the  church 
may  exercise  authority:  that  its  authority  must  be 
decided  upon  by  itself,  that  is,  by  the  Pope,  and 
exercised  without  the  permission  and  assent  of  the 
civil  government :  and  that,  in  the  case  of  conflicting 
laws,  between  the  two  powers,  the  laws  of  the  church 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


95 


must  prevail  over  those  of  the  state.  They  insist 
that  the  state  is  bound  to  recognize  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic  Church  as  the  sole  depository  of  the  delegated 
power  to  decide  what  laws  shall  be  obeyed  and  what 
disobeyed.  To  permit  a  church,  any  church,  to 
decide  upon  the  validity  or  invalidity  of  our  laws 
after  enactment,  or  to  dictate  beforehand  what  laws 
should  or  should  not  be  passed,  would  be  to  deprive 
the  people  of  all  the  authority  they  have  retained  in 
their  own  hands,  and  to  make  such  church  the  gov¬ 
erning  power,  instead  of  them.  Yet,  understanding 
this  perfectly  well,  and  evidently  contemplating  the 
time  when  they  might  possibly  be  able  to  bring 
about  this  condition  of  affairs,  these  Papal  represen¬ 
tatives  directly  assail  a  principle  which  has  been  uni¬ 
versal  in  all  our  state  governments,  from  their  foun- 
dation  :  that  which  regulates  by  law  the  holding  of 
real  estate  by  churches  and  other  corporations,  and 
requires  them  to  conform,  in  this  temporal  matter,  to 
the  statute  laws  of  the  states.  (  Thompson’s  “  Papacy 
and  Civil  Power,”  pages  42  and  45.) 

The  Second  National  Council  of  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  hierarchy,  was  held  at  Baltimore?  in  October, 
1866.  This  plenary  council,  —  the  highest  Roman 
Catholic  authority  in  this  country,  but  of  course 
absolutely  subordinate  to  the  Pope,  who  dictated  its 
policy  before  its  session,  protested  against  the  con¬ 
trol  of  ecclesiastical  property  by  the  civil  laws  of  the 
several  commonwealths ;  and  a  Romanist  authority 
remarks  on  one  of  its  utterances,  “  The  desire  of 
gradually  introducing  in  this  country,  as  far  as- 


96 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


practicable,  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  prevalent 
throughout  almost  the  entire  church,  was  strongly 
and  repeatedly  expressed  by  the  fathers  of  the  late 
National  Council  of  Baltimore.  Its  decrees  tend 
both  avowedly  and  implicitly  to  promote  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  this  object.”  Here  is  the  express  declar¬ 
ation  of  principles  of  hostility  and  irreconcilable  var¬ 
iance  of  the  Romish  church  against  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Now,  while  every  American  citizen  is  sworn  to 
support  the  Constitution,  and  every  Roman  Catholic 
holding  office  in  the  United  States  is  so  obligated, 
the  question  occurs  whether,  as  between  the  obligation 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  con¬ 
trary  demand  of  the  Church,  they  will  as  patriots 
support  the  State,  or  as  Romanists  support  the 
Church. 

Peter  Dens,  the  great  authority  and  commentator 
on  ecclesiastical  law  in  the  Romish  church,  who  has 
been  a  standard  with  them  for  a  hundred  years, 
defines  the  principles  of  the  common  law  of  that 
church,  among  which  are  the  following  :  “  The  Pope 
can  dispense  with  any  law.  The  Constitutions  and 
decrees  of  the  Pope  are  explanations  of  the  divine 
law,  and  are  therefore  binding  as  soon  as  known.  The 
church  does  not  recognize  the  right  in  any  govern¬ 
ment  to  say  whether  or  not  the  pontifical  decrees 
shall  be  enforced.  She  is  supreme  and  independent, 
and  therefore  can  admit  of  no  intermeddling  with  her 
authority.  The  Pope’s  temporal  power  is  necessary 
to  the  free  exercise  of  his  spiritual  authority.  He 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


97 


derives  his  jurisdiction  immediately  from  God,  and 
imparts  a  share  of  the  plenitude  of  his  power  to  his 
bishops.  Ecclesiastical  property  must  be  governed 
by  the  laws  of  the  church.  The  state  ought  to 
recognize  and  carry  into  effect  the  laws  of  the  church. 
By  these,  laymen  have  no  right  to  property  in  the 
church,  and  it  is  against  the  law  of  God  for  them  to 
dispose  of  its  revenue. 

“  The  coercive  power  of  the  church  includes  the 
power  to  punish  the  insubordinate,  and  repress  the 
lawless,  which  extends  to  any  punishment  short  of 
the  shedding  of  blood,  such  as  imprisonment  in  mon¬ 
asteries  and  other  chastisements.”  ( Thompson’s 
“Papacy  and  the  Civil  Power,”  pages  608-10.) 
The  Pope,  then,  can  grant  a  dispensation  as  it  is 
called,  excusing  any  Romanist,  whatever  his  oaths  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  from  keeping 
those  oaths,  and  justifying  him  in  breaking  any  law, 
whatever  that  law,  that  the  Pope  shall  denounce. 
The  exercise  of  authority  over  political  opinion,  as  we 
said  in  our  lirst  discourse,  is  the  theory,  as  it  is 
the  practice,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  You 
may  find  in  Roman  Catholic  bookstores  a  little  book 
written  by  Monseigneur  Segur,  a  Frenchman, 
entitled,  “  Plain  Talk  about  the  Protestantism  of 
To-day.”  This  book,  which  we  shall  have  occasion 
to  refer  to  several  times  hereafter,  is  highly  com¬ 
mended  by  the  ecclesiastics  of  the  church,  and  its 
author  has  received  the  thanks  of  the  Pope  himself. 
I  wish  you  all  might  read  it.  As  concerning  the 
point  we  are  now  making,  that  the  Pope  has  abso- 


98 


Romanism  and  the  Hepubl'a. 


lute  power  to  abrogate  all  constitutions  and  to  com¬ 
mand  all  his  subjects  to  disobey  the  laws  of  any 
country  in  which  they  live,  if  he  chooses  so  to  do, 
Mons.  Segur  says  :  “  The  authority  of  the  church  is  a 
guard  over  human  understanding  in  whatever, 
directly  or  indirectly,  affects  religion  ;  which  means , 
in  every  hind  of  doctrines ,  religious ,  philosophical , 
scientific ,  political ,  etc”  Please  emphasize  in  your 
minds  this  word  political.  In  connection  with  all 
else  that  we  have  secured  from  Romanistic  sources, 
Archbishop  Manning  says:  “The  principles  of 
ethics,  and  therefore  of  politics  as  a  branch  of  ethics , 
all  lie  in  the  theological  order.”  This  is  sufficient  to 
establish  every  claim  to  political  obedience.  Hence, 
if  the  Pope  shall  declare  that  any  political  opinions 
are  wrong,  unjust,  or  immoral,  the  declaration  must 
be  held  by  all  obedient  children  of  the  Church  to  be 
unerringly  and  indisputably  true  ;  and  to  save  them¬ 
selves  from  excommunication  for  heresy,  they  must 
make  exterminating  war  upon  all  such  opinions. 
Hence,  also,  if  he  shall  declare  that  any  existing 
government  is  opposed  to  the  welfare  of  the  church, 
and,  therefore,  to  the  law  of  God,  the  same  result  must 
follow.  And  hence  again,  if  he  shall  declare  that  the 
government  of  the  United  States  is  unjust,  and  an 
act  of  usurpation,  because  it  gives  license  to  the 
heresy  of  Protestantism  ;  because  it  repudiates  the 


allows  the  people  to  make  their  own  laws ;  because 
it  requires  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  to  obey  the 
laws  thus  made  ;  because  it  does  not  recognize  the- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


99 


Roman  Catholic  religion  as  the  only  true  religion; 
because  it  recognizes  the  right  pf  each  individual  to 
interpret  the  Scriptures  for  himself,  and  to  enter¬ 
tain  whatsoever  religious  belief  his  own  conscience 
and  reason  shall  approve,  or  none  at  all,  if  he  shall 
think  tit ;  because  it  has  separated  Church  and  State, 
and  denies  the  right  of  the  Church  to  subordinate 
the  State  to  any  of  its  laws  ;  because  it  not  only  tol¬ 
erates,  but  fosters  and  protects,  free  thought,  free 
speech,  and  a  free  press ;  and  because  it  is,  on 
account  of  any  and  all  of  these  things,  in  open  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  Romish  law,  and  therefore  heretical, —  does 
not  every  man  of  common  sense  see  that  the  Papal 
followers  must  select  between  conformity  to  his  opin¬ 
ions  and  excommunication?  between  obedience  to 
him,  and  the  forfeiture  of  eternal  salvation?  between 
resistance  to  the  government  and  his  pontifical  curse  ? 
between  treason  and  hierarchical  denunciation? 
(“  The  Papacy  and  the  Civil  Power,”  page  1,53.) 

Against  the  origin  of  our  Constitution,  against  the 
principles  which  it  sets  forth,  against  the  freedom 
which  it  provides,  Rome  stands,  the  champion  of  abso¬ 
lutism,  hating  republics  in  the  principles  of  their 
government,  and  standing  for  the  divine  right  of 
kings  to  exercise  unrestricted  authority  over  their 
subjects,  or  authority  restricted  only  by  the  law  of 
the  Pope.  This  hostility  has  been  shown  toward  the 
Republic  of  France.  The  descendant  of  the  Bour¬ 
bons,  the  Count  de  Chambord,  was  the  favorite  of 
the  Papacy,  and  Pope  Pius  IX.  used  all  his  influence 
to  elevate  him  to  the  throne  which  the  French 


100 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Republic  had  thrown  down  ;  because,  as  Segur  says  : 
“  This  descendant  of  kings  had  given  solemn  prom¬ 
ise  that.  once  on  the  throne  of  France,  he  will  take 
up  the  cause  of  the  Pope  ;  and  then  the  sword  of 
Charlemagne  shall  spring  from  its  scabbard  and  con¬ 
voke,  as  of  old,  the  Catholic  peoples  to  the  rescue 
of  Rome  from  the  miserable  and  despicable  Italian 
apostates.” 

These  apostates  are  Victor  Emanuel,  and  Cavour 
and  Garibaldi,  with  all  who  have  helped  to  create 
modern  Italy,  and  rescue  it  from  Papal  tyranny. 
And  it  is  to  the  book  containing  these  sentiments  of 
hostility  to  republics  that  Pius  IX.  has  given  his 
approbation  and  his  benediction,  in  an  affectionate 
letter  addressed  to  M.  Segur  as  his  “beloved  son.” 
What  should  we  say  if  the  Pope  should  formally 
declare  the  laws  of  the  Constitution  of  our  country 
null  and  void,  as  he  practically  has  already  the  First 
Amendment,  and  other  material  portions  of  that  Con¬ 
stitution?  What  should  we  say,  were  he  to  send  his 
Allocutions  to  North  America,  as  he  has  to  South 
America  within  the  last  forty  years,  pronouncing- 
null  and  void  our  laws?  For  I  would  not  permit 
you  to  forget,  that  since  1855  the  Pope,  inciting 
sedition  in  the  several  states,  has  taken  upon  him  to 
declare  null  and  void  the  laws  of  New  Granada  (this 
was  in  1803)  ;  the  laws  of  Mexico  in  1850  ;  the  laws 
of  Sardinia  in  1855  ;  the  laws  of  Austria  in  1802  ; 
those  of  Spain  in  1855  ;  and  of  Piedmont  in  the 
same  year.  And  in  every  case,  the  laws  which  he 
pronounced  null  are  essential  parts  of  the  American 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


101 


Constitution  and  of  our  common  law.  An  irrepressi¬ 
ble  conflict  will  exist  between  the  Papacy  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  until  one  or  the 
other  is  destroyed.  Which  shall  it  be?  I  answer, 
Not  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ! 

3.  But  Rome’s  antagonism  to  the  Constitution  as 
a  whole,  will  be  more  manifest  when  we  note  how 
utterly  irreconcilable  it  is  with  the  several  parts  of 
the  great  document. 

The  First  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  reads  as  follows  :  “  Article  1.  Con¬ 
gress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  the  establishment 
of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof; 
or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press  ; 
or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble,  and 
to  petition  the  government  for  a  redress  of  griev¬ 
ances.”  The  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
Article  First,  section  third,  reads  :  “  The  free  exer¬ 
cise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  wor¬ 
ship  without  discrimination  or  preference  shall  forever 
be  allowed  in  this  State  to  all  mankind.”  The  Con¬ 
stitution  of  Massachusetts  contains  the  same  .senti¬ 
ment.  The  meaning  and  cause  of  these  enactments 
is  obvious  to  every  one,  not  only  in  the  essential 
justice  and  righteousness  of  such  laws,  but  in  the 
dreadful  history  of  many  European  states,  which,  in 
their  endevor  to  force  upon  their  subjects  a  religion 
or  form  of  worship  which  did  not  commend  itself  to 
the  conscience  of  the  people,  have  devastated  their 
fairest  provinces,  destroyed  the  lives  of  thousands 
of  their  loyal  subjects,  and  interfered  with  the  gen- 


102 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


eral  prosperity  of  society  and  of  the  state.  Mind¬ 
ful  of  these  horrors,  our  fathers,  who  themselves 
were  exiled  for  conscience  sake,  wisely  decided  that 
only  that  religion  could  control  a  man’s  life  and 
ennoble  his  character  which  he  had  voluntarily 
received  in  good  conscience  from  God ;  and  that 
with  this  understanding  they  made  a  good  law, 
founded  on  a  righteous  decision,  the  prosperity  of 
the  Church  and  of  the  State  in  the  United  States 
equally  attests. 

Hear  now  the*  contrary  doctrine  of  the  Pope. 
January  1,  1870,  Cardinal  Antonelli,  in  behalf  of 
Pope  Pius  IX.,  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  Nicaraugua : 
“  We  have  lately  been  informed  here  that  an  attempt 
has  been  made  to  change  the  order  of  things  in 
that  Republic  by  publishing  programmes  in  which  are 
enunciated  freedom  of  education  and  worship. 
Both  of  these  principles  are  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
God  and  of  the  Church .”  Or  listen  to  the  Papal 
law  in  the  letter  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  to  the  unfortunate 
Maximillian  in  Mexico.  This  you  may  read  in 
“Appleton’s  Annual  Encyclopedia  for  1865,”  p.  749  : 
“To  repair  the  evils  occasioned  by  the  revolution, 
and  to  bring  back  as  soon  as  possible  happy  days  for 
the  Church,  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  must  above 
all  things  continue  to  be  the  glory  and  mainstay  of 
the  Mexican  nation,  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other 
dissenting  worship.  That  no  person  may  obtain  the 
faculty  of  teaching  and  publishing  false  tenets  ;  that 
instruction,  whether  public  or  private,  should  be 
directed  and  watched  over  by  the  ecclesiastical  author - 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


103 


ity ;  and  that,  in  short,  the  chains  maybe  broken 
which,  up  to  the  present  time,  have  held  down  the 
church  in  a  state  of  dependence  and  subject  to 
the  arbitrary  rule  of  a  civil  government.’'  Can  you 
find  any  correspondence,  any  harmony,  any  possi¬ 
bility  of  reconciliation  between  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  these  declarations  of  the  high¬ 
est  Papal  authority?  It  is  impossible.  They  are 
exactly  contradictory. 

Proposition  78  of  the  Papal  Syllabus  condemns 
the  principle  of  toleration  which  allows  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  other  religions  beside  the  Roman  Catholic. 
Therein  the  Pope  anathematizes  the  proposition  that, 
“  It  has  been  wisely  provided  by  law  in  some  countries 
called  Catholic,  that  persons  coming  to  reside  therein 
shall  enjoy  the  public  exercise  of  their  own  relig¬ 
ion.”  Thus  all  religious  toleration  is  stigmatized  as 
an  error.  Which  shall  we  have  in  America?  Which 
will  Roman  Catholics  support?  Which  will  you 
admit,  the  principle  of  the  Constitution,  that  Con¬ 
gress  shall  not  legislate  concerning  the  establishment 
of  religion  ;  or  the  principle  of  the  Papacy,  that  the 
Shite  shall  legislate  in  favor  solely  of  the  Romish 
Church  ? 

The  prohibition  of  the  free  exercise  of  religion, 
concerning  which  the  Constitution  declares  Congress 
shall  make  no  law,  is  antagonized  by  the  express 
declaration  of  the  Pope,  that  no  other  religion  than 
the  Roman  Catholic  may  be  established  or  tolerated 
by  the  state.  We  grow  sick  of  the  iteration  and 
reiteration  of  this  bigoted  but  central  principle  of 
Romanism. 


104 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


In  the  prohibition  of  the  free  exercise  of  religion, 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  appeals  not  only  to  law 
and  anathema  but  to  physical  punishment,  affirming 
the  absolute  duty  of  the  civil  power  to  use  force,  and 
the  right  of  the  Church  to  coerce  those  who  choose 
to  worship  after  another  manner  and  form.  Little 
does  it  matter  whether  the  Church  exercise  this 
power  immediately  through  inquisitors,  or  indirectly 
through  a  subservient  state.  Dr.  Newman,  descant¬ 
ing  on  the  title  of  the  Church  to  employ  force,  says, 
though  he  inclines  to  the  milder  side  and  limits  the 
kind  of  force  :  “  The  lighter  punishments,  those  tem¬ 
poral  and  corporal,  such  as  shutting  up  in  monaster¬ 
ies  and  prisons,  fogging,  and  others  of  the  same  kind, 
short  of  the  effusion  of  blood,  the  Church,  by  her 
own  right,  can  inflict.”  The  brief  or  letter  of  Inno- 
cent  III.  says:  “  We  are  able  als<  ,  and  bound  to 
coerce.”  The  Jesuit  Shrader,  with  a  Papal  appro¬ 
bation,  gives  us  the  following  affirmative  proposi¬ 
tion,  answering  to  the  negative  condemnation  of  the 
Syllabus:  ‘*The  church  has  the  power  to  apply 
external  coercion  ;  she  has  also  a  temporal  authority, 
direct  and  indirect and  appends  the  remark  :  “  Not 
souls  alone  are  subject  to  her  authority.”  — 
Gladstone,  “  Vaticanism,”  p.  162-4. 

“  Undoubtedly,”  says  Cardinal  Manning,  quoting 
with  approbation  from  the  doctrines  maintained  by 
Bellerini,  “  unity  with  the  Roman  faith  is  absolutely 
necessary,  and  therefore  the  prerogative  of  absolute 
infallibility  is  to  be  ascribed  to  it,  and  a  coercive 
power  to  constrain  to  unity  of  faith,  in  like  manner. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


105 


absolute  :  as  also  the  infallibility  and  coercive  power 
of  the  Catholic  Church  itself,  which  is  bound  to 
adhere  to  the  faith,  are  absolute.”  And  in  order 
to  most  fully  prove  the  doctrine  of  infallibility, 
and  delegate  to  the  Pope  the  entire  authority  over 
the  Church,  Archbishop  Manning  declares,  “This 
infallibility  and  coercive  power  are  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  Pope  and  are  personal.” 

Here,  then,  as  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  United  States,  that  Congress  shall  not 
even  make  a  law  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  of 
religion,  the  Romish  Church  makes  the  law,  applies 
it  in  every  country, —  in  the  United  States  as  well  as 
in  Italy  or  SpaTi, — and  affirms  in  addition,  the  right  to 
compel  by  force,  over  the  bodies  as  well  as  the  souls 
of  men,  obedience  to  the  Roman  Catholic  worship. 
And  every  Roman  Catholic  is  sworn  to  give  his 
obedience  to  the  Pope  as  against  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  under  penalty  of  excoqamunication 
and  peril  of  temporal  and  eternal  damnation.  When 
I  have  told  you,  as  I  shall  later  on,  in  his  own  words, 
the  horrible  curses  which  fall  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Pope  in  excommunicating  those  who  break  his  com¬ 
mands — curses  that  may  well  from  their  very  boldness 
and  blasphemy  cause  trembling  in  a  superstitious 
mind  —  vou  will  see  in  his  words  the  black  flag  of  that 
detachment  of  religionists  calling  themselves  Chris¬ 
tians,  who  march  to  the  overthrow  of  all  religious 
freedom. 

To  what  extent  may  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
coerce?  How  does  the  Pope,  how  do  the  Cardinals 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


106 

and  Archbishops  of  to-day,  understand  this  term  as 
they  use  it?  We  know  what  they  meant  by  coercion 
in  the  past.  We  know,  in  their  relation  to  the 
Huguenots,  the  Waldenses,  the  Albigenses,  and  the 
Lollards,  what  coercion,  has  meant  with  the  Romish 
Church.  We  know  what  the  Inquisition  meant  by 
coercion  —  death  by  torture,  by  tire,  by  sword  and  ax, 
by  starvation,  by  burying  alive  ;  and  these  have  been 
the  sanctioned  methods  of  the  Romish  Church,  never 
repudiated.  Do  they  mean  the  same  to-day?  I 
answer,  There  is  no  restriction  on  the  degree  or  kind  of 
force  that  they  will  employ  except  their  own  cruelty. 
Segur,  whom  I  quoted  sometime  since,  and  wdiose 
book  you  can  purchase  for  a  very  small  sum  at  the 
Roman  Catholic  bookstores,  justifies  the  Inquisition, 
and  in  justifying  it  has  the  approval  and  blessing  of 
the  Pope.  After  stating  that  the  Spanish  Inquisition 
was  established  by  Roman  Catholic  governments  as 
an  ecclesiastical  institution,  and  thus  agreeing  that  it 
had  the  sanction  and  approbation  of  the  Church,  he 
proceeds:  “  That  institution  you  may  value  as  you 
choose  :  you  are  at  liberty  to  condemn  the  abuses 
and  cruelties  of  which  it  has  been  guilty  through  the 
violence  of  political  passions  and  the  character  of  the 
Spaniard ;  yet  one  cannot  but  acknowledge  in  the 
terrible  part  taken  by  the  clergy  in  its  trio  Is,  the  most 
legitimate  and  most  natural  exercise  of  ecclesiastical 

i 

authority.”  This  book  was  not  designed  for  Protest¬ 
ant  readers.  It  was  avowedly  and  expressly 
addressed  to  those  who  were  supposed  to  be  ready 
and  willing  listeners  to  the  words  of  authority  ;  to 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


107 


such  as  tamely  and  submissively  put  'their  manhood 
into  the  keeping  of  ecclesiastical  superiors. 

Is  there  any  reader  so  ignorant  that  he  needs  to 
be  told  what  the  Spanish  Inquisition  was,  which  is 
here  declared  to  be  the  most  legitimate  and  most 
natural  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  authority  ?  Of  all 
the  institutions  ever  known  to  the  world,  or  ever 
invented  by  human  ingenuity,  it  was  the  most  cruel, 
oppressive  and  bloodthirsty.  Its  thousands  of  vic¬ 
tims,  whose  bones  were  crushed  with  its  accursed 
instruments  of  torture,  and  whose  groans  made  its 
priestly  officials  laugh  with  a  joy  akin  to  that  of  the 
fiends  of  hell,  still  cry  out  of  their  tombs  against  it. 
Yet  in  the  nineteenth  century,  while  humanity  has  not 
ceased  to  shudder  at  the  thought  of  its  possible  sur¬ 
vival,  the  press  of  an  American  publishing  house 
sends  forth  among  the  adherents  of  Roman  Catholi¬ 
cism  in  the  United  States,  with  the  sanction  and 
approval  of  the  Pope  of  Rome  and  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  of  Boston,  the  startling  avowal,  that 
this  horrible  instrument  is  “  the  most  legitimate  and 
most  natural  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  authority .” 
And  more  than  one  of  the  Roman  Catholic  journals 
in  the  United  States  have  taken  extraordinary  pains 
to  commend  this  book  in  which  this  avowal  is  made 
to  their  readers,  as  does  the  Boston  Pilot  in  its  issue 
of  February  20,  1870.  (“Papacy  and  the  Civil 
Power,”  pp.  81-83.) 

The  Spanish  Inquisition  !  Jean  Antoine  Llorente 
was  secretary  of  the  Inquisition  of  Spain,  and  when 
that  institution  was  suppressed, in  1809,  T0,T1,  all 


108 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


the  archives  were  placed  at  his  disposal.  These  con¬ 
sisted  of  unpublished  manuscripts  and  papers  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  inventories  of  deceased  inquisitors. 
They  were  carefully  examined,  and  furnished  him 
much  of  the  valuable  information  communicated  in 
his  published  “  History  of  the  Inquisition.”  He  says, 
that  the  “  horrid  conduct  of  this  holy  office  weakened 
the  power  and  diminished  the  population  of  Spain,  by 
arresting  the  progress  of  arts,  sciences,  industry  and 
commerce,  and  by  compelling  multitudes  of  families 
to  abandon  the  kingdom  ;  by  instigating  the  expul¬ 
sion  of  the  Jews  and  the  Moors,  and  by  immolating 
on  its  flaming  shambles  more  than  three  hundred 
thousand  victims .”  He  traces  its  history  with  great 
minuteness  of  detail,  showing  its  introduction  into 
Aragon  during  the  reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  : 

O  O  Cr 

the  punishment  of  the  Albigenses  and  the  Jews  by  its 
cruelties  ;  its  approval  by  Popes  Sextus  I V. ,  Inno¬ 
cent  VIII. ,  and  others,  as  the  means  of  augmenting 
their  power  ;  and  gives  the  harsh  and  unprecedented 
rules  of  procedure  by  which  it  was  governed.  One 
of  those  rules  shows  how  necessary  it  was  considered 
to  the  Papacy,  and  that  it  was  employed  by  the 
reverend  Inquisitors  both  as  a  religious  and  political 
institution.  It  required  all  witnesses  to  be  asked, 
in  general  terms,  “If  thev  had  ever  seen  or  heard 
anything  which  was,  or  appeared,  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  faith,  or  the  rights  of  the  Inquisition.” 
(Llorente’s  “  History  of  the  Inquisition.”) 

La  Maistre,  in  his  “Letters  on  the  Spanish  Inquisi¬ 
tion,”  defending  the  institution,  says,  in  1815  :  “The 

7  O  7  *7  7 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


109 


Inquisition  is,  in  its  very  nature,  good,  mild  and  pre¬ 
servative.  It  has  the  universal,  indelible  character  ot 
every  ecclesiastical  institution;  you  see  it  in  Rome, 
and  you  can  see  it  wherever  the  true  Church  has 
power.”  Quite  true  !  This  writer  seems  to  be 
recommending  the  Inquisition  to  Americans.  He 
admits  that  it  existed  in  Spain  by  virtue  of  the  bull 
of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff.  He  says  that  the  grand 
inquisitor  is  always  either  an  archbishop  or  a  bishop. 
He  justifies  the  infliction  of  capital  punishment  upon 
those  who  attempt  to  subvert  the  established  religion 
of  a  nation  ;  which  means,  that  the  Pope  would  require 
a  resort  to  this  remedy  as  the  only  means  of  obey¬ 
ing  the  divine  law,  wherever  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion  is  the  religion  of  the  State,  as  he  is  now 
striving  to  make  it  in  the  United  States.  He  says; 
“  A  sense  of  duty  obliges  me  to  say,  that  a  heresiarch, 
an  obstinate  heretic,  and  a  propagator  of  heresy, 
should  indisputably  be  ranked  among  the  greatest 
criminals.”  That  means,  everyone  who  cannot  be 
forced  into  silence  and  submission  by  Romish 
coercion.  Again:  “I  by  no  means  doubt  that  a 
tribunal  of  this  description,  adapted  to  the  times, 
place  and  character  of  nations,  would  be  highly  use¬ 
ful  in  every  country.”  He  speaks  of  the  “  demoniac 
spirit  of  Puritanism,”  and  of  Protestantism  as  “  nick¬ 
named  piety,  zeal,  faith,  reformation  and  ortho¬ 
doxy.” 

Now  these  letters  of  La  Maistre  were  published  by 
Patrick  Donahoe,  Catholic  bookseller  of  Boston,  in 
1813.  How  do  you  like  them?  What  do  you  think 


110 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


of  substituting  the  mild  Inquisition  for  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States?  And  you  would  have  to 
substitute  it,  since  the  Inquisition  and  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  cannot  live  together  in  the  same  country. 

And  this  Inquisition,  somewhat  modified,  was  made 
use  of  in  the  city  of  Rome  until  1870.  There  religi¬ 
ous  toleration  was  unknown.  No  Protestants  what¬ 
ever  were  allowed  to  hold  any  service  within  the 
walls  of  Rome,  as  long  as  the  Pope  had  power.  Pun¬ 
ishment,  imprisonment  and  death  were  inflicted  by 
the  Pope,  and  under  his  express  sanction  and  author¬ 
ity.  I  need  not  say,  that  one  hour  of  life  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  were  worth  an 
age  of  slavery  under  this  revolting  tyranny.  And 
yet  by  every  law  of  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus,  by 
defence  of  past  persecutions  which  it  originated  and 
carried  forward,  by  the  principles  at  present  insisted 
on  which  it  further  advises  shall  speedily  be  made 
controlling,  by  the  open  and  threatening  declara¬ 
tions  of  its  ecclesiastics,  by  its  uncompromising  hatred 
of  all  other  forms  of  religion  than  its  own,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  to-day  would  blot  out  the  benignant 
Constitution  of  our  Republic,  and  replace  it  by  these 
accursed,  blasphemous  and  vindictive  statutes  and 
theories,  which  would  destroy  every  vestige  of  free¬ 
dom  and  Protestantism  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 
I  shall  prove  this  still  more  fully  as  I  proceed,  out 
of  the  mouths  of  their  own  lawgivers  and  rulers, 

4.  And  now  I  beg  your  attention  to  the  specific 
declarations  of  the  Constitution  in  favor  of  freedom 
of  conscience,  and  the  counter  declarations  of  the 


Ill 


Romanism,  and  the  Republic . 

Roman  Catholic  law.  The  Constitution  says,  as 
already  quoted :  “  Congress  shall  make  no  law 

respecting  the  establishment  of  religion  or  prohibit¬ 
ing  the  free  exercise  thereof,  or  abridging  the  free¬ 
dom  of  speech  or  of  the  press.”  It  maybe  possible 
that  men  shall  speak  so  recklessly,  whether  by  word 
or  by  printed  page,  that  a  limit  must  be  set  upon 
their  expressions.  To  meet  such  cases,  we  already 
have  laws  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution,  against 
slander,  against  vile  and  indecent  language  spoken 
or  written,  against  those  utterances  in  time  of  war 
that  shall  incite  to  treason  or  «;ive  aid  and  comfort  to 
the  enemy.  But  Congress  has  not,  and  never  will 
violate  this  fundamental  principle  of  our  government, 
that  the  place  and  manner  of  worship,  of  speech,  and 
of  writing,  shall  be  only  limited  by  the  laws  of  moral¬ 
ity  and  by  the  safety  of  the  State.  Shall  we  contrast 
this  attitude  of  our  Constitution  with  that  foreign 
power  that  is  trying  to  overthrow  it?  You  remem¬ 
ber  that  we  quoted  Father  Hecker  as  saying : 
“  There  is,  ere  long,  to  be  a  state  religion  in  this 
country,  and  that  state  religion  is  to  be  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic.”  While  the  Catholic  World  says:  “Do  you 
believe  that  this  country  will  ever  become  Catholic?’ 
is  changing  to  the  question  ‘  How  soon  do  you  think 
it  will  come  to  pass?’  Soon,  very  soon,  we  reply, 
if  statistics  be  correct.”  Bishop  O’Connor  says : 
“Religious  liberty  is  merely  endured  until  the- 
opposite  can  be  carried  into  effect  without  peril 
to  the  Catholic  world.”  “  Liberty  of  conscience,” 
says  Pope  Pius  IX.,  endorsing  the  bull  of  Gregory 


112 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


XVI.,  is  a  most  pestiferous  error.  From  it  spring 
revolutions,  corruption,  contempt  of  sacred  things, 
holy  institutions  and  laws,  and,  in  one  word,  that 
pest  of  others  most  to  be  dreaded  in  a  state,  unbri¬ 
dled  liberty  of  opinion.” 

Religious  liberty  he  denounces,  because  it  makes 
the  people  disobedient  to  their  princes  ;  and  because, 
if  it  should  be  conceded  to  the  Italians  of  the  Papal 
States,  they  will  soon  naturally  acquire  political  lib¬ 
erty,  like  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Concerning  freedom  of  the  press,  he  says  :  “  We 
have  been  truly  shocked  at  this  most  crafty  device 
[Bible  Societies] ,  by  which  the  very  foundations  of 
religion  are  undermined.  We  have  deliberated  upon 
the  measures  proper  to  be  adopted  by  our  pontifical 
authority,  in  order  to  remedy  and  abolish  this  pesti¬ 
lence ,  as  far  as  possible,  this  defilement  of  the  faith , 
so.  imminently  dangerous  to  souls.  It  is  evident 
from  experience  that  the  Holy  Scriptures,  when  cir¬ 
culated  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  have,  through  the  tem¬ 
erity  of  men,  produced  more  harm  than  benefit. 
Warn  the  people  entrusted  to  your  care,  that  they 
fall  not  into  the  snares  prepared  for  their  everlasting 
ruin.  Several  of  our  predecessors  have  made  laws 
to  turn  aside  this  scourge.”  (“  Papacy  and  the  Civil 
Power,”  pages  208-9.) 

But  suppose  the  Pope  had  the  power  in  this  country 
that  he  claims ;  and  suppose,  in  violation  of  the 
Constitution,  he  forbade  here  liberty  of  worship, 
free  speech,  and  a  free  press  ;  and  suppose  again, 
which  is  very  likely,  that  you  should  disobey  t his 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  113 

imperial  pontifical  statute,  what  would  be  the  result? 
It  may  seem  like  repetition,  and  yet  we  think  it  can¬ 
not  he  too  often  or  too  fully  impressed  upon  your 
minds,  that  death  would  be  the  penalty  of  your 
disobedience.  For  Dens,  their  great  authority,  says  : 
“  Infidels  are  not  to  be  tolerated.  Infidelity  is  not 
to  be  tried  or  proved,  but  extirpated.”  Baptized 
heretics,  (for  they  allow  the  legitimacy  of  your  bap¬ 
tism  while  they  affirm  your  heresy,)  are  to  be  visited 
with  excommunication,  as  in  the  case  of  the  bull  of 
Pius  IX.,  a  few  years  ago,  excommunicating  all 
Protestants.  They  are  to  be  considered  as  infamous  ; 
their  temporal  goods  are  to  be  confiscated ;  they 
are  to  be  subjected  to  corporal  punishment,  to  exile 
and  impisonment.  In  case  they  remain  obstinate, 
they  are  to  be  dealt  with  as  John  Huss  and  Jerome 
were,  under  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Constance  ; 
that  is,  they  shall  suffer  death. 

Hear  the  emphatic  and  plain  language  of  this 
standard  Romish  authority  : 

“Are  heretics  rightly  punished  with  death  ?  Saint 
Thomas  answers  ‘Yes  ;  because  forgers  of  money,  or 
other  disturbers  of  the  state,  are  justly  punished 
with  death  :  therefore  also  heretics,  who  are  forgers 
of  the  faith,  and,  experience  being  witness,  grievously 
disturb  the  state.”’  (  Dens,  Volume  2,  Number  56, 
Page  89.) 

But  how  will  these  terrific  penalties  be  executed 
when  the  Pope  has  the  power?  The  Constitution 
gives  every  man  the  right  of  speedy  trial  by  jury  in 
open  court,  before  an  impartial  jury  :  he  is  to  be 


114 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


informed  of  the  nature  of  the  accusation,  to  be  con¬ 
fronted  with  witnesses,  to  have  compulsory  process 
for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor,  to  have  the  assist- 
ance  of  a  counsel  for  his  defense  :  excessive  tines 
shall  not  be  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punish¬ 
ments  inflicted.  (  Amendments  to  the  Constitution, 
Articles  YI.  and  VIII.)  This  is  the  mercy  of  a  free 
government,  which  assumes  the  innocence  of  men 
until  they  are  proven  guilty  by  fair  trial. 

But  what  is  the  order  of  the  Inquisition,  which  is 
the  judicial  enginery  of  the  Papacy  ?  All  along  they 
have  denied  that  ecclesiastics  shall  be  tried  by  civil 
court.  They  curse  and  denounce  those  who  would 
subject  the  priests  to  the  civil  power.  This  curse 
and  declaration  was  contrary  to  the  declaration  of 
Independence,  which  is  almost  as  much  a  part  of  the 
foundation  of  our  government  as  is  the  Constitution 
itself ;  which  great  instrument  declares  that  all  men 
are  created  free  and  equal,  a  doctrine  against  which 
the  Pope  fulminates  at  almost  every  turn.  Ecclesias¬ 
tics  then  shall  not  be  held  responsible  to  civil  courts 
and  constitutional  laws.  And  by  ecclesiastical  courts, 
by  secret  tribunal,  by  inquisitor,  on  private  informa¬ 
tion,  without  witnesses  in  one’s  favor,  without  an  im¬ 
partial  jury,  counsel  being  denied,  the  traps  of  fierce 
ecclesiastical,  I  had  almost  said  devilish,  law  being 
set :  by  these  means  are  heretics  to  be  tried,  and  by 
these  means  condemned.  This  is  the  historic  method 
of  Romanism  ;  its  avowed  policy,  declared  by  its 
Popes,  and  by  its  authoritative  writers,  under  Papal 
sanctions  :  this  is  actually  the  method  pursued  in  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


115 


Papal  States  until  1870,  when  the  Pope  lost  his 
temporal  power ;  and  this  is  the  condition  to  which 
they  avow  their  purpose  to  subjugate  us. 

Do  you  question  whether  these  quiet  and  diplo¬ 
matic  prelates  would  really  execute  such  Papal 
mandates?  whether  kindly  neighbors  would  become, 
at  the  Pope’s  command,  persecutors,  informers  and 
destroyers?  Hard  as  it  is  to  conceive,  this  is 
exactly  what  has  happened.  So  it  was  at  the  massacre 
of  St.  Bartholomew  in  France,  where  at  least  700,000 
Protestants  were  foully  murdered  by  Papists  ;  for 
which  the  Pope,  Gregory  XIII.,  commanded  Te 
Deums  to  be  sung  in  the  churches  of  Rome,  and  in 
honor  of  which  he  ordered  a  medal  struck  with  his 
own  face  on  one  side,  and  a  scene  of  slaughter  on  the 
obverse.  Though  a  tiger  ma}^  create  admiration  by 
the  symmetry  of  his  form,  and  the  smoothness  and 
beauty  of  his  skin,  I  prefer  not  to  be  so  fascinated 
but  that  I  remember  that  he  has  a  tiger’s  nature 
within.  I  can  admire  the  diplomatic  skill,  the  intense 
devotion,  and  persistent  patience  of  Romish  Jesuits, 
but  I  dare  not  trust  their  heart ;  and  therefore  I  arm 
myself  and  you  with  the  truth  which  shall  defend  us 
from  their  assaults. 

In  your  hearing,  I  have  cited  the  laws  and  princi¬ 
ples  which  claim  absolute  sway  over  Roman  Catho¬ 
lics,  and  have  cited  also  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  to  which  they  are  diametrically  opposed. 
And  now,  that  you  may  know  what  spirit  is  in  those 
laws,  whether  there  is  a  tierce  and  cruel  heart  behind 
them  all,  I  shall  quote  to  you  the  excommunication 


116 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


bestowed  on  Victor  Emanuel,  King  of  United  Italy, 
by  the  Pope  of  Rome.  This  shocking  curse  was 
dealt  out,  to  him,  not  because  he  was  immoral,  or 
ambitious,  or  a  tierce  soldier.  All  these  may  have 
been  his  characteristics,  but  they  call  forth  no  Papal 
hate.  Only  when  he  appears  amid  the  acclamations 
of  emancipated  Italians,  the  King  of  United  Italy, 
does  the  hatred  of  the  Pontiff  burst  forth  against  him. 
In  the  person  of  Victor  Emanuel  then,  the  church 
thus  anathematizes  freedom  in  Italy. 

And  remember,  while  I  read  this  furious  curse, 
that  it  is  spoken  by  one  whom  Roman  Catholics  call 
the  “  Vicar  of  Christ,”  who  assumes  by  their  con¬ 
sent,  among  other  titles,  that  of  “  Prince  of  God,” 
“The  Oracle  of  Religion,”  “  Our  Lord  God  the 
Pope,”  “The  Most  Holy  Father,”  “Priest  of  the 
World,”  “The  Divine  Majesty,”  with  other  names 
of  blasphemy.  Without  prejudice,  make  up  your 
minds  what  spirit  dwells  in  a  man,  or  a  church,  that 
can  employ  the  following  curse  : 

“  By  authority  of  the  Almighty  God,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  and  of  the  Holy  Canons,  and 
of  the  undefiled  Virgin  Mary,  mother  and  nurse  of  our 
Saviour ;  and  of  the  celestial  virtues,  angels,  arch¬ 
angels,  thrones,  dominions,  powers,  cherubims,  and 
seraphims;  and  of  all  the  holy  patriarchs  and  pro¬ 
phets  ;  and  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists ;  and  of 
the  holy  innocents,  who,  in  the  sight  of  the  Holy 
Lamb,  are  found  worthy  to  sing  the  new  song;  and 
of  the  holy  martyrs  and  holy  confessors,  and  of  the 
holy  virgins,  and  of  the  saints,  together  with  all  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


117 


holy  and  elect  of  God  :  we  excommunicate  and  ana¬ 
thematize  him,  and  from  the  threshold  of  the  holy 
church  of  God  Almighty  we  sequester  him,  that  he 
may  be  tormented  in  eternal  excruciating  sufferings, 
together  with  Dathan  and  Abiram,  and  those  who 
say  to  the  Lord  God,  ‘  Depart  from  us;  we  desire 
none  of  thy  ways.’  And  as  lire  is  quenched  by 
water,  so  let  the  light  of  him  be  put  out  forever 
more.  May  the  Son  who  suffered  for  us,  curse  him. 
May  the  Father  who  created  man,  curse  him.  May 
the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  given  to  us  in  our  baptism, 
curse  him.  May  the  Holy  Cross  which  Christ,  for 
our  salvation,  triumphing  over  his  enemies,  ascended, 
curse  him.  May  the  Holy  and  eternal  Virgin  Mary, 
mother  of  God,  curse  him.  May  St.  Michael  the 
advocate  of  holy  souls,  curse  him.  May  all  the 
angels  and  archangels,  principalities  and  powers,  and 
all  the  heavenly  armies,  curse  him.  May  St.  John 
the  precursor,  and  St.  Peter,  and  St  Paul,  and  St. 
John  the  Baptist,  and  St.  Andrew,  and  all  other 
Christ's  apostles,  together  curse  him,  and  may  the 
rest  of  his  disciples  and  four  Evangelists,  who  by 
their  preaching  converted  the  universal  world, —  and 
may  the  holy  and  wonderful  company  of  martyrs  and 
confessors,  who  by  their  holy  work  are  found  plead¬ 
ing  to  God  Almighty, —  curse  him.  May  the  Choir 
of  the  Holy  Virgins,  who  for  the  honor  of  Christ 
have  despised  the  things  of  this  world,  damn  him.  May 
all  the  saints  who  from  the  beginning:  of  the  world, 
and  everlasting  ages  are  found  to  be  beloved  of  God, 

O  O 

damn  him.  May  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  all 
things  remaining  therein,  damn  him. 


118 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


“  May  he  be  damned  wherever  he  may  be  ;  whether 
in  the  house  or  in  the  field,  whether  in  the  highway 
or  in  the  byway,  whether  in  the  wood  or  water,  or 
whether  in  the  church.  May  he  be  cursed  in  living 
and  dying,  in  eating  and  drinking,  in  tasting  and 
thirsting,  in  slumbering  and  sleeping,  in  watching  or 
walking,  in  standing  or  sitting,  in  lying  down  or 
walking  mingendo  cancando,  and  in  all  blood-letting. 
May  he  be  cursed  in  all  the  faculties  of  his  body. 
May  he  be  cursed  inwardly  and  outwardly.  May 
he  be  cursed  in  his  hair.  May  he  be  cursed  in  his 
brain.  May  he  be  cursed  in  the  crown  of  his  head 
and  in  his  temples.  In  his  forehead  and  in  his  ears. 
In  his  eyebrows  and  in  his  cheeks.  In  his  jaw-bones 
and  his  nostrils.  In  his  foreteeth  and  in  his  m  inders. 

v_ 

In  his  lips  and  in  his  throat.  In  his  shoulders  and 
in  his  wrists.  In  his  arms,  his  hands,  and  in  his 
fingers.  Mav  lie  be  damned  in  his  mouth,  in  his 
breast,  in  his  heart,  and  in  all  the  viscera  of  his  body. 
May  he  lie  damned  in  his  veins  and  in  his  groin  ;  in 
his  thighs  ;  in  his  hips  and  in  his  knees  ;  in  his  legs, 
feet,  and  toe-nails. 

“  May  he  be  cursed  in  all  the  joints  and  articulations 
of  his  body.  From  the  top  of  his  head  to  the  sole  of 
his  foot  may  there  be  no  soundness  in  him.  May  the 
Son  of  the  living  God,  with  all  the  glory  of  his 
Majesty,  curse  him;  and  may  heaven,  with  all  the 
powers  that  move  therein,  rise  up  against  him  — 
curse  him  and  damn  him  !  Amen.  So  let  it  be  ! 
Amen.” 

Hell  is  not  more  remote  from  heaven  than  this 
from  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ! 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


119 


And  I  call  upon  all  men  who  are  witnesses  to  the 
spirit  and  words  of  Papal  tyranny,  on  Protestants 
and  Roman  Catholics  who  love  God  and  manhood, 
liberty  and  country,  to  register  a  solemn  vow  with 
God,  like  that  in  which  you  yielded  your  hearts  to 
his  service,  that  never,  by  your  indifference,  consent 
or  connivance,  shall  the  Papal  power  make  a  sepul¬ 
chre  beneath  its  curses  for  the  Constitution  and  the 
Laws  which  are  the  glory  and  protection  of  free 
America. 


Sermon  V* 


ROMANISM  ANTAGONISTIC  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION 

AND  THE  LAWS. 

My  sermon  is  really  a  continuation  of  that  of  last 
Sunday  evening,  and  my  text  is  the  same  as  then.  In 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  the  fourth  chapter,  begin¬ 
ning  with  the  fifth  verse  :  “  Behold  I  have  taught 

you  statutes  and  judgments,  even  as  the  Lord  my  God 
commanded  me,  that  ye  shall  do  so  in  the  land 
whither  ye  go  to  possess  it.  Keep  therefore  and  do 
them ;  for  this  is  your  wisdom  and  your  understand¬ 
ing  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,  which  shall  hear  all 
these  statutes,  and  say,  Surely  this  great  nation  is  a 
wise  and  understanding  people.  For  what  nation 
is  there  so  great,  who  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them, 
as  the  Lord  our  God  is  in  all  things  that  we  call  upon 
him  for?  And  what  nation  is  there  so  great,  who 
hath  statutes  and  judgments  so  righteous  as  all  this 
law7,  which  I  set  before  you  this  day?” 

You  will  remember,  if  you  were  here,  that  I 
showed  how  this  might  apply  to  the  Constitution  of 
this  great  country,  and  I  also  showed,  in  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  last  Sunday  evening,  the  relation  of  the 
Constitution  to  the  welfare  and  liberty  of  the  State. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


121 


I  then  proceeded  to  point  oat  the  utter  antagonism 
of  Romanism  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  in  the  following  particulars  :  First, 
That  while  the  Constitution  recognizes  the  people, 
under  God,  as  the  source  of  all  authority  ;  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  recognizes  the  Pope,  under  God,  as 
the  source  of  all  authority.  Second,  —  I  brought  to 
your  attention  the  fact  that,  while  the  Constitution 
is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  insists  that  the  will  of  the  Pope  is  th$ 
supreme  law  of  all  lands.  I  then  took  up  the  First 
Amendment  of  the  Constitution,  showing  that  it  is 
according  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
that  no  religion  shall  be  established  by  law ;  and 
I  then  showed  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 
always  clamoring  to  have  Romanism  established  by 
law.  I  further  proved  that  it  was  contrary  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  forbid  any  relig¬ 
ion  in  this  country  ;  and  I  then  showed  that  it  is 
according  to  the  principles  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  to  forbid  every  religion  excepting  its  own. 

Then  I  read  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  that  liberty  of  conscience  should  never  be 
abridged  in  our  nation,  and  quoted  from  the  Pope  of 
Rome  and  the  hierarchs  to  show  that  liberty  of  con¬ 
science  was  considered  by  them  a  pest  and  a  delirium. 
I  also  quoted  the  Constitution  as  against  abridging 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press.  Afterwards  I 
quoted  Roman  Catholic  authorities  as  considering 
liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press  a  pestilence,  as 
they  declared  in  encyclicals  and  acts  of  councils.  I 


122 


Humanism  and  the  Republic. 


then  proceeded  to  show  that  it  was  contrary  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  inflict  severe 
penalties  without  fair  trial  by  jury  ;  and  afterwards, 
that  Roman  Catholicism  declares  her  ecclesiastical 
laws  to  he  superior  to  all  civil  law,  and  claims  the 
right  to  inflict  all  sorts  of  penalties  :  and  having 
proved  all  these  things,  I  closed  by  reading  the  dia¬ 
bolical  excommunication  which  was  visited  upon 
Victor  Emanuel,  by  Pope  Pius  IX.,  to  show  the 
fierceness  of  the  Papal  spirit. 

When  we  closed  the  last  discourse,  we  had  shown 
that  Romanism,  in  its  letter  and  spirit  alike,  was  hos¬ 
tile  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the 
laws  of  the  countrv.  Now  we  will  resume  where 
then  we  paused,  the  line  of  irrefutable  proof  that  this 
is  the  fact. 

In  further  demonstration  of  this,  I  call  your  atten¬ 
tion  to  a  remark  of  the  most  distinguished  statesman 
of  Spain,  Castelar,  who,  in  1869,  said  to  the  Spanish 
Cortes  :  44  There  is  not  a  single  progressive  principle 
which  has  not  been  cursed  by  the  Catholic  Church. 
This  is  true  of  England  and  Germany,  as  well  as  of 
Catholic  countries.  The  Church  cursed  the  French 
Revolution,  the  Belgium  Constitution  and  the  Ital- 
ian  Independence.  Nevertheless  all  these  princi¬ 
ples  have  unrolled  themselves  in  spite  of  it.  Not  a 
Constitution  has  been  born,  not  a  single  progress 
made,  not  a  solitary  reform  effected  which  has  not 
been  under  the  terrible  anathemas  of  the  Church.” 

As  though  to  add  emphasis  to  the  very  words  that 
I  have  spoken,  the  present  Pope  has  just  issued 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


1 23 


another  encyclical  against  liberty,  of  which  you  will 
find  an  abstract  in  the  New  York  Independent  for 
August  2,  1888,  in  which  all  the  assaults  of  which 
we  have  taken  note  heretofore  are  renewed.  Liberty 
of  conscience,  freedom  of  worship  and  the  suprem¬ 
acy  of  the  Constitution  are  all  disallowed,  and  the 
Pope  protests  that  the  State  ought  to  suppress  any 
other  than  the  Pom  an  Catholic  religion.  This  doc- 
ument  is  later  than  the  infamous  rescript  concerning 
Irish  affairs,  which  has  so  effectually  shut  the  mouths 
of  all  those  enthusiastic  patriots  who  hitherto  have 
been  doing  their  utmost  for  what  they  call  the  liber¬ 
ation  of  Ireland. 

Perhaps  the  most  capable  theologian  and  essayist 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  America  was 
Orestes  A.  Brownson,  a  pervert  from  Protestant¬ 
ism.  That  he  fully  shared  the  sentiments  of  the 
Pope  you  may  learn  from  his  writings  ;  among  which 
occurs  the  following  significant  assertion  :  “  All  the 
rights  the  sects  have,  or  can  have,  are  derived  from 
the  State,  and  rest  on  expediency.  As  they  have, 
in  their  character  of  sects,  hostile  to  the  true  relig¬ 
ion,  no  rights  under  the  law  of  nature  or  the  law  of 
God,  they  are  neither  wronged  nor  deprived  of  lib¬ 
erty  if.  the  State  refuses  to  grant  any  rights  at  all.” 
The  New  York  Tablet  says:  “  They  have,  as  Pro¬ 
testants,  no  authority  in  religion,  and  count  for  noth¬ 
ing  in  the  Church  of  God.  They  have  from  God  no 
right  for  propagandism,  and  religious  liberty  is  in  no 
sense  violated  when  the  national  authority,  whether 
Catholic  or  pagan,  closes  their  mouths  and  their 
places  of  holding  forth.” 


124 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


But  now  I  call  you  to  notice,  that  .Romanism  in 
America  has  violated  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  by  overt  acts. 

1.  Note  the  following  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion  by  Romanism,  in  the  matter  of  appropriating 
public  monies.  The  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  the  several  States,  do  not  war¬ 
rant,  but  rather  forbid,  the  appropriation  of  money  by 
the  States  to  sects,  for  their  own  specific  purposes. 
This  is  a  natural  and  necessary  interpretation  of  the 
First  Amendment  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  reason 
for  it  is  obvious  to  all.  But  by  threats  and  political 

m 

influences,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  violated 
this  law  in  many  cases. 

Among  the  most  conspicuous,  are  those  in  New 
York  State  and  New  York  City.  The  chief  author¬ 
ity  on  this  matter  is  the  late  Dexter  A.  Hawkins  of 
New  York,  who,  in  the  New  York  Christian  Advo¬ 
cate  of  January,  1880,  tells  us  in  detail  how  the 
Roman  Catholics  possessed  themselves  of  several 
blocks  in  the  best  part  of  New  York  City,  where 
now  the  Cathedral  stands.  Five  and  a-lialf  whole 
blocks  were  stolen  from  the  city,  worth  at  least 
three  millions  and  a-lialf  of  dollars,  and  no  consider¬ 
ation  was  given  in  return.  Not  only  this,  but  speci¬ 
fically  Roman  Catholic  institutions,  schools,  churches, 
and  so-called  benevolent  institutions,  have  been  sup¬ 
ported  largely  by  public  funds:  127  of  these  Rom¬ 
ish  institutions,  in  eleven  years  prior  to  1879,  had 

received  six  million  dollars.  The  Tweed  ring  in 

© 

1869,  exchanged,  for  the  political  influence  of  Roman- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


125 


ists,  $800,000  in  appropriations  that  year.  So  far 
from  these  sectarian  institutions  being  benevolent, 
it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  some  of  them  have  been 
made  prisons  for  those  who  have  thrown  off  the  yoke 
of  Rome  and  espoused  the  Christian  faith.  Spirited 
away  from  their  homes  and  placed  in  durance  vile, 
some  of  them  have  never  been  heard  from  again  since 
they  entered  the  walls  of  these  institutions,  the  sole 
purpose  of  which  is  to  make,  out  of  the  young  and 
rising  generation,  converts  to  Rome. 

But  not  only  in  the  States  has  this  flagrant  violation 
of  the  Constitution  occurred.  By  stealth,  the  Roman 
Catholics  have  secured  from  the  national  government, 
appropriations  to  specifically  Romish  schools.  You 
may  perhaps  know  that  the  Government  supports,  in 
part,  schools  for  the  Indians,  in  which  the  various 
denominations  also  bear  a  part.  The  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics  have  a  Bureau  of  observation  and  effort  at 
Washington,  from  which  they  bring  to  bear  influ¬ 
ences  upon  Congress  to  secure  the  lion’s  share  of 
these  appropriations.  Last  year,  of  the  entire 
appropriations  for  Indian  education,  the  Roman 
Catholics,  who  number  only  one-sixth  to  one-tenth 
of  our  population,  received  fifty-five  and  a-lialf  per 
cent.,  while  all  the  Protestant  Churches,  in  their 
work,  though  they  number  five-sixths  to  nine-tenths 
of  the  population,  received  only  forty-four  and  a- 
half  per  cent.  This  indicates  the  alarming  extent  to 
which  Rome  influences  even  national  legislatures  in 
the  line  of  building  up  her  own  power. 

In  addition  to  these  appropriations,  thus  forced 


126 


Romanism  and  the  Republic, 


from  the  public  treasury,  Rome,  with  her  usual 
greed  of  grain,  has  secured  and  holds  vast  proper¬ 
ties  in  our  cities  and  country  on  which  she  pays  no 
taxes. 

Among  the  principles  of  the  Romish  Church  is 
this,  that  it  lias  the  legitimate  right  to  secure,  hold 
and  use  property  without  limit.  In  our  country r 
churches  and  religious  corporations,  as  well  as  all 
other  corporations,  can  hold  property  only  when 
authorized  so  to  do  by  statute,  and  for  the  uses  speci¬ 
fied  by  statute,  and  then  only  to  the  amount  fixed  by 
statute.  The  Romish  Church  opposes  all  this,  as  by 
it  they  are  prevented  from  swallowing  up  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  the  country. 

In  England,  before  the  statute  of  mortmain,  the 
Church  had  got  possession  of  one-third  of  the  property 
of  the  kingdom,  and  so  astute  were  the  priests  in 
evading  the  laws  of  the  realm,  that  it  took  four  hun- 
dred  years  to  so  perfect  them  as  to  protect  the  public 
against  the  rapacity  of  this  Church.  Blackstone 
says,  that  but  for  these  statutes,  ecclesiastical  corpor¬ 
ations  would  soon  have  engulfed  the  whole  real 
estate  of  England.  After  all  these  precautions,  the 
civ  il  po  wer  had  finally  to  resort  to  confiscation,  to 
restore  enough  of  the  land  to  the  people  to  ensure 
the  prosperity  of  the  realm. 

In  Italy,  Spain  and  Mexico,  the  civil  government, 
for  like  reasons,  though  it  was  Roman  Catholic,  has 
been  compelled  to  resort  to  confiscation.  As  a 
sample  of  Romish  greed,  in  the  year  1848,  through 
unmitigated  chicanery,  the  Romish  ecclesiastics- 


127 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 

obtained  from  a  feeble  old  man  in  Brooklyn,  New 
York,  a  vast  landed  property.  They  secured  an  act 
of  incorporation  for  a  nominal  society,  The  Brooklyn 
Benevolent  Society,  which  simply  pours  its  revenues 
into  the  pockets  of  the  priests  and  prelates,  and  in 
the  one  year  1880,  this  property  should  have  paid  into 
the  treasury  of  the  city  not  less  than  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars  annual  taxes.  They  have  held  it 
without  a  penny  of  tax,  and  do  to  this  day. 

This  is  but  a  sample.  The  rapacity  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  for  money  is  simply  without  bound. 
The  Pope  lives  in  the  utmost  splendor  and  luxury. 
His  palace  is  the  grandest  of  any  sovereign  in  Europe. 
His  state  carriages,  covered  with  gold,  are  inferior 
to  those  of  no  other  monarch.  Cardinals,  arch¬ 
bishops  and  bishops,  alike  live  in  luxury,  and  many 
in  gross  dissipation ;  while  the  Roman  Catholic 
people  throughout  the  world  are  notoriously  poor. 
The  Romish  Church  is  a  vast  system  of  plunder. 
Almost  everything  obtained  in  the  way  of  religious 
consolation  by  her  poor  and  superstitious  people 
must  be  paid  for  with  money.  The  confessional  is 
little  less  than  a  means  of  extorting  gold  from  the 
people.  Purgatory  and  masses  for  the  dead,  is 
only  another  measure  for  the  same  purpose. 

All  Roman  Catholic  countries  are  miserably  poor 
as  compared  with  Protestant  countries,  as  Romanists 
themselves  declare.  Spain,  once  the  richest  of 
empires,  has  been  almost  bankrupt  for  many  years, 
and  while  Protestant  countries  have  grown  enor¬ 
mously  in  wealth,  even  under  unfavorable  circum- 


128 


Romanism  and  the  Republic 


stances,  as  steadily  Roman  Catholic  nations  have 
grown  poorer.  For  this  the  church  is  responsible. 
The  real  trouble  in  Ireland  is  indicated  by  the 
recent  interference  of  the  Pope.  The  trouble  is 
Popery.  In  vain  the  Papal  power  leads  the  Irish 
people  to  think  that  England  is  the  cause  of  all  their 
woes.  But  if  Ireland  was  totally  detached  from  the 
British  Empire,  that  part  of  it  that  is  under  the 
domination  of  priests  would  be  as  Spain  and  Italy, 
it  would  become  poorer  and  poorer.  In  Canada,  in 
the  United  States,  in  Mexico  and  the  South  American 
Republics,  as  well  as  in  European  States,  Rome  must 
answer  for  the  fact  that  her  people,  with  all  their  nat¬ 
ural  sifts  and  advantages,  which  do  not  seem  to  be 
in  any  wise  inferior  to  the  providential  opportunities 
of  Protestants,  are  crushed  to  death  by  the  extortions, 
the  avarice,  the  rapacity  of  priestly  rulers.  And 
both  by  their  laws  and  their  practices,  it  is 
evident  that  Rome  purposes  nothing  less  in  this 
country  than  to  possess  itself  of  vast  wealth,  at  the 
expense  of  the  people,  for  the  destruction  of  the 
nation. 


2.  But  1  pass  from  this  violation  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  and  the  rights  of  man,  to  some  further  proofs 
that  the  Romanists  propose  to  make  the  Pope 
supreme  in  America. 

First  of  all,  this  is  their  creed,  their  religion ; 
this  is  the  doctrine  of  -  their  councils,  the  doctrine  of 
their  Encyclicals,  the  spirit  of  all  their  work.  Their 
ablest  theologians,  whom  we  have  cited,  so  expound 
their  laws.  And  they  are  not  more  attached  to  any 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


129 


principles  of  their  religion  than  to  this  purpose  to 
make  the  Pope  supreme  and  absolute  ruler.  Hear 
the  arrogant  words  in  which  their  oracle,  Brownson, 
asserts  this  purpose  :  “  The  people  need  governing, 

and  must  be  governed.  They  must  have  a  master. 
The  religion  which  is  to  answer  our  purpose  must 
be  above  the  people,  and  able  to  command  them. 
The  first  lesson  of  the  child  is  to  obey ;  the  first  and 
last  lesson  to  the  people,  individually  and  collectively, 
is  obey.  There  is  no  obedience  where  there  is  no 
authority  to  enjoin  it.  The  Roman  Catholic  religion, 
then,  is  necessary  to  sustain  popular  liberty,  because 
popular  liberty  can  be  sustained  only  by  a  religion 
free  from  popular  control,  above  the  people,  speak¬ 
ing-  from  above  and  able  to  command  them,  and  such 
a  religion  is  the  Roman  Catholic.  In  this  sense  ive 
wish  this  country  to  come  under  the  power  of  Rome. 
As  the  visible  head  of  the  Church,  the  spiritual 
authority  which  Almighty  God  has  instituted  to 
teach  and  govern  the  nation,  we  assert  his  supremacy, 
and  tell  our  countrymen  that  we  would  have  them 
submit  to.  him.  They  may  flare  up  as  much  as  they 
please,  and  write  as  many  alarming  and  abusive  edit¬ 
orials  as  they  choose,  or  can  find  time  and  space  to 
do.  They  will  not  move  us,  or  relieve  themselves 
from  the  obligation  Almighty  God  has  placed  them 
under,  of  obeying  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  Pope  and  all.”  Could  anything  be  more 
definite  than  this,  or  more  insolent?  Nothing; 
unless  it  is  the  laws  and  practices  of  the  Papal 
power. 


130 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

To  secure  this  end,  the  present  Pope,  Leo  XIII. r 
expressly  commands  American  Roman  Catholics  to 
political  activity.  Here  are  his  words  of  November 
1,  1885,  an  extract  from  his  Encyclical:  “Every 
Catholic  should  rigidly  adhere  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Roman*  Pontiffs,  especially  in  the  matter  of 
modern  liberty,  which  already,  under  the  semblance 
of  honesty  of  purpose,  leads  to  harm  and  destruction. 
We  exhort  all  Catholics  who  would  devote  careful 
attention  to  public  matters,  to  take  an  active 
part  in  all  municipal  affairs  and  elections,  and 
to  favor  the  principles  of  the  Church  in  all  pub¬ 
lic  services,  meetings  and  gatherings.  All  Cath- 

7  o  o  o 

olics  must  make  themselves  felt  as  active  elements  in 
daily  political  life  in  the  countries  where  they  live. 
They  must  penetrate,  wherever  possible,  in  the  admin¬ 
istration  of  civil  affairs  :  must  constantly  exert  the 
utmost  vigilance  and  energy  to  prevent  the  usages  of 
liberty  from  going  beyond  the  limits  fixed  by  God’s 
law.  All  Catholics  should  do  all  in  their  power  to 
cause  the  Constitutions  of  States  and  legislation  to  be 
modeled  in  the  principles  of  the  true  Church.  All 
Catholic  writers  and  journalists  should  never  lose  for 
an  instant  from  view  the  above  prescriptions.”  By  this 
time,  you  know  what  the  purpose  of  such  advice  and 
counsel  is, —  the  suppression  of  liberty,  the  downfall 
of  the  Constitution,  the  ruin  of  the  State.  Do  Rom¬ 
anists  obey  this  Papal  command?  Exactly,  as  they 
obey  all  other  Papal  commands.  You  would  hardly 
suppose  that  Roman  Catholics  in  this  or  other 
American  cities  needed  to  be  exhorted  to  greater 
political  activity. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


131 


And  yet  under  the  Papal  command,  they  are  evi¬ 
dently  aiming  at  supreme  power  over  the  State. 
For,  not  only  have  they  heard  the  word  of  the  Pope, 
and  avowed  as  part  of  their  creed  their  purpose  to 
make  him  supreme,  but  American  Romanists,  in  great 
public  meetings,  have  promised  to  assist  in  restoring 
and  maintaining  the  Pope’s  temporal  power. 

After  Victor  Emanuel  occupied  Rome.,  numerous 
great  pul) lie  indignation  meetings  were  held  by  the 
Roman  Catholics  throughout  the  United  States,  in 
many  of  which,  together  with  their  protests  against 
Italian  interference  with  the  Pope’s  temporal  govern¬ 
ment,  they  pledged  themselves  to  restore  the  Pontiff 
to  his  rightful  throne  ;  and  in  denouncing  the  course 
of  Italy,  its  Constitution  and  its  purposes,  they 
denounce  almost  every  principle  of  the  American 
Constitution.  This  was  particularly  the  case  in  a 
great  Roman  Catholic  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  on  the 
25th  of  March,  1873,  in  which,  among  the  terrible 
persecutions  which  they  recounted  as  having  been  visi¬ 
ted  upon  their  fellow  Catholics  in  Germany , they  stated 
the  following  :  First,  the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits  ; 
second,  the  encroachment  upon  the  Constitutional 
rights  of  the  German  Catholic  hierarchy,  by  retaining 
in  their  positions  and  dignities  the  Old  Catholics  ; 
third, the  encroachments  upon  the  rights  of  conscience, 
by  keeping  others  than  Romanists  in  charge  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  schools  ;  fourth,  the  unchristianizing  of  the  schools. 
These  they  call  arbitrary  and  tyrannical  measures,  and 
yet  these  are  the  common  law  of  the  United  States, 
to  which  they  are  equally  antagonistic.  In  pursu- 


132 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


ance  of  this  determination,  Roman  Catholic  periodi¬ 
cals,  from  time  to  time,  have  threatened  “political 
damnation,”  to  use  their  own  phraseology,  to  legis¬ 
lators  who  opposed  their  behests.  This  unseemly 
menace  is  particularly  conspicuous  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  R  eview  for  November,  1885,  a  periodical 
commended  by  the  Bishop  of  Brooklyn,  Cardinal 
McClosky,  Bishop  of  New  York,  Cardinal  Cullen, 
Archbishop  of  Dublin,  and  many  other  prelates. 
Commenting  on  the  refusal  of  the  Legislature  of  New 

O  O 

York  to  grant  the  Roman  church  certain  favors,  they 
boast  that  those  legislators  had  been  retired  from 
political  life,  and  affirm  that  they  have  a  list  of  others 
who  shall  follow  them,  unless  they  yield  to  do  the  bid¬ 
ding  of  Rome.  In  Canada,  the  interference  of  Rom¬ 
ish  prelates  in  elections,  their  boast  that  the  Jesuits 
controlled  the  political  force  of  the  province,  have 
already  become  a  matter  of  history,  as  they  have 
of  alarm.  If,  in  the  face  of  these  threats  of  political 
overthrow,  and  the  establishment,  on  the  ruins  of  our 
liberties,  of  the  Papal  power,  you  shall  reply  that 
these  Roman  Catholics  are  American  citizens,  and 
have  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  and  the  laws, 
and  that  you  do  not  think  that  they  will  violate  their 
oath,  I  must  call  upon  you  to  remember,  first  of  all, 
as  the  most  binding  of  their  oaths,  they  are  sworn 
to  obey  the  Pope,  and  that  as  long  as  they  are 
Romanists. 

3.  The  oaths  of  Roman  Catholics  are  no  guaran- 
tee  of  their  loyalty  to  the  Constitution.  They  are 
specifically  sworn  to  obey  the  Pope  in  preference  to 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


133 


any  other  ruler,  his  law  above  every  other  law. 
The  bishop’s  oath,  which  I  have  already  given  you  in 
detail,  unhesitatingly  affirms  this.  The  Jesuit’s  oath 
is  even  stronger  in  its  utter  renunciation  of  all  other 
rule  or  government  than  the  Papal ;  while  the  priests 
and  laymen  are  bound  to  the  same  control.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  they  profess  first  a  supreme  allegiance 
to  the  Pope. 

Shortly  after  the  decree  of  infallibility  was 
announced,  and  this  profession  of  primary  fidelity  to 
the  Pope  was  made  in  New  York,  the  New  YorJc 
Herald ,  which  has  always  been  controlled  by  a  mod¬ 
erate  Roman  Catholic  said  :  “  There  are  thousands  of 
Roman  Catholics  in  this  land  who  do  not  place 
Rome  above  the  United  States,  and  whose  patriotism 
cannot  be  subverted  by  fealty  to  religious  dogmas 
and  creeds.”  To  this  patriotic  utterance,  which  we 
would  fain  believe  to  be  true,  the  New  York  Tablet, 
Roman  Catholic,  of  November  1372,  replied:  “The 
Herald  is  behind  the  times,  and  appears  not  yet  to 
have  learned  that  the  thousands  of  Catholics  it 
speaks  of  are  simply  no  Catholics  at  all,  if  it  does  not 
misrepresent  them.  Gallicanism,  which  denies  the 
temporal  power  of  the  Pope,  is  a  heresy  ;  and  he  who 
denies  the  Papal  supremacy  in  the  government  of  the 
universal  church,  is  as  far  from  being  Catholic  as  he 
who  denies  the  Incarnation,  or  the  Real  Presence. 
The  church  is  more  than  country,  and  fealty  to  the 
creed  God  teaches  and  enjoins  through  her,  is  more 
than  patriotism.  We  must  obey  God  rather  than 
man.”  And  further  it  says  :  “  Our  church  is  God’s 


134 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


church,  and  not  accountable  either  to  State  or  to 
country.”  Thus  you  see  how  the  organ  of  the  hierar¬ 
chy  denounces  the  doctrine  of  moderate  Romanism, 
which  had  only  insisted  on  loyalty  to  the  country. 

But  you  reply,  that  all  Roman  Catholics  in  office, 
as  those  who  have  become  naturalized  in  this  coun¬ 
try,  have  taken  an  oath  of  fealty  to  the  Constitution 
and  the  Republic, — will  they  not  be  debarred  there¬ 
fore  from  treason,  even  at  the  Pope’s  command,  by 
their  oath?  We  answer:  The  Roman  Catholic  theory 
of  oaths  permits  those  who  have  taken  them,  without 
blame,  to  violate  any  oath  or  obligation  when  the 
Pope  commands.  One  of  the  greatest  Popes,  Inno¬ 
cent  III.,  asserted  for  himself  such  plentitude  of 
power  as  gave  him  right  to  dispense  with  any  law. 
The  Fourth  General  Lateran Council,  with  the  approval 
of  Alexander  III.,  decreed,  that  an  oath  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church  and  the  enactments 
of  the  holy  fathers  is  not  to  be  called  an  oath,  but 
rather  perjury.  Peter  Dens,  the  great  commentator 
on  the  laws  and  morality  and  theology  of  the  Church, 
lays  it  down  as  the  law  of  the  Church,  that  the  right 
of  the  Pope,  as  the  ultimate  superior  and  sovereign,  is 
reserved  in  every  oath  ;  which,  of  course,  includes 
the  oath  of  allegiance.  He  also  instructs  the  faithful, 
that  the  Pope  has  the  power  of  withdrawing  or  pro¬ 
hibiting  what  is  included  in  an  oath  ;  and  that  when 
he  does  so,  it  is  no  longer  included.  I  can  give  you 
the  most  abundant  proof,  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
theologians,  that  by  the  law  of  mental  reservation,  as 
they  call  it,  any  Roman  Catholic  is  justified  in  taking 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


135 


a  false  oath  ;  in  swearing  that  he  is  ignorant  of  what 
he  knows  to  be  true  :  in  swearing  that  he  knows  to  be 
true  that  of  which  he  is  ignorant,  or  any  other  use 
of  language  which  sets  truth  at  defiance.  What, 
then,  is  the  oath  of  a  Roman  Catholic  worth,  provided 
his  personal  honor  and  sense  of  right  is  not  greater 
than  that  of  the  law  of  his  church?  I  do  not  say 
that  Roman  Catholics  are  not  numerous  whose  word 
and  whose  oath  are  honestly  made,  and  will  be  hon¬ 
estly  kept ;  but  I  do  sa}r,  that  this  is  no  part  of  their 
religion,  and  that  the  Pope  may,  under  penalty  of 
excommunication,  command  them  to  violate  any 
oath . 

But  we  go  even  further  than  this,  and  are  unfortu¬ 
nately  able  from  history  to  show  that  Roman 
Catholics,  being  wholly  at  the  mercy  of  the  Pope, 
oannot  be  relied  on  in  their  oaths,  even  when  we 
suppose  that  they  speak  without  reservation,  and 
when,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  their  oath  is  honestly 
taken.  You  may  be  familiar  with  what  is  known  as 
Catholic  Emancipation  in  Great  Britain.  The  Roman 
Catholics,  on  account  of  the  universal  doubt  enter¬ 
tained  of  their  loyalty,  had  long  been  subject  to 
civil  disabilities,  under  which  they  groaned,  and 
against  which  they  protested.  These  disabilities 
were  not  imposed  capriciously  by  the  Crown  or  Par¬ 
liament  of  Great  Britain,  but  were  the  result  of  long 
contention  with  Papal  usurpation,  and  of  an  honest 
doubt  as  to  the  loyalty  of  Roman  Catholics.  While 
the  agitation  was  going  on,  and  the  measures  for 
the  relief  of  British  Roman  Catholics  were  pending. 


136 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


English  and  Irish  priests  and  laymen  combined  to 
affirm,  under  oath,  that  “It  is  not  an  article  of  the 
Catholic  faith,  neither  are  they  required  to  believe 
or  profess  that  the  Pope  is  infallible.  Second  :  That 
their  Church  has  no  power  that  can  directly  or 
indrectly  injure  Protestants,  as  all  she  can  do  is  to 
refuse  them  her  sacraments,  which  they  do  not  want. 
And  third  :  That  no  ecclesiastical  power  whatever  can 
directly  or  indirectly  affect,  or  interfere  with,  the 
independence,  the  sovereignty,  laws  and  Constitution 
or  government  of  the  realm.” 

And  on  the  26th  of  February,  1(310,  the  English 
Catholic  bishops  declare  as  follows  :  “  The  said  oath, 
and  the  declarations,  objurations  and  protestations 
therein  contained,  are  notoriously,  to  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  Church  at  large,  become  a  part  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion,  as  taught  us  by  the  Bishops,  and 
received  and  maintained  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Churches  in  Ireland  ;  and  as  such,  are  approved  and 
sanctioned  by  the  other  Roman  Catholic  Churches. 
The  protestation  Avas  signed  by  two  hundred  and  forty- 
one  priests,  including  all  the  vicars  apostolic,  by  all 
the  clergy  and  laity  of  England  of  any  note  ;  and  in 
1789,  in  a  general  meeting  of  the  English  Catholics 
in  London,  aa^is  subscribed  to  by  every  person 
present,  and  the  document  was  deposited  in  the 
British  Museum  as  a  proof  of  their  loyalty  and 
honesty. 

And  yet  Avhat  do  we  see  ?  AVe  see  a  Council  at 
the  Vatican,  in  1870,  imposing  a  new  law  upon  these 
Roman  Catholics  and  their  descendants,  in  utter  and 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


137 


absolute  contradiction  of  the  vow  that  they  them¬ 
selves  sustained  and  declared,  concerning  which  Mr. 
Gladstone  says,  while  he  does  not  deny  the  honor  of 
the  Roman  Catholics  that  made  this  protest,  “  Either 
the  Papal  See  and  Court,  had  at  that  time,  abandoned 
the  dream  of  the  enforcement  of  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church;  or  else,  by  wilful  silence,  they  were 
guilty  of  practicing  upon  the  British  Crown  one  of 
the  blackest  frauds  recorded  in  history.”  (“  Vatican¬ 
ism,”  p.  134.) 

Here,  then,  is  a  historic  instance,  which,  if 
it  proves  anything  proves  this  :  that  if  all  the  lead¬ 
ing  Roman  Catholics  in  this  country  should  meet 
together  and  solemnly  swear  that  there  was  nothing 
in  the  laws  of  their  Church  inconsistent  with  their 
highest  patriotism  and  devotion  to  the  country, —  if 
they  should  swear  that,  according  to  their  under¬ 
standing,  the  Pope  could  not  interfere  with  their  civil 
allegiance, —  he  might,  within  twenty- four  hours  of 
that  time,  on  his  sole  and  only  responsibility,  reverse 
their  oaths,  and  command  them,  under  pain  of  eternal 
damnation,  to  take  up  arms  against  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  ;  and  their  honesty  of 
purpose  in  the  avowal  which  they  had  made  could 
not  for  one  moment  stand  against  the  order  and  the 
will  of  the  infallible  Pope.  No  wonder  that  an 
eminent  Catholic  layman,  in  a  recent  periodical,  with 
most  pathetic  and  sorrowful  allusions,  protests 
against  the  fact  that  the  conscience,  the  judgment, 
the  loyalty  of  Roman  Catholics  are  subject  solely 
and  only  to  the  Pope  of  Rome.  Thus  by  the  evident 


Romanism  and  l he  Republic. 


13cS 


laws  and  purposes  of  the  Romish  Church,  and  by 
their  history  also,  they  are  thoroughly  disloyal  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  pledged 
to  disobedience  to  the  laws. 

I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  in  all  candor  and 
reason,  every  Roman  Catholic  who  confesses  this  alle¬ 
giance  to  the  Papacy,  ought  to  be  disfranchised  in  the 
United  States,  and  forbidden  the  right  to  participate, 
as  a  citizen,  in  either  holding  an  office  or  casting  a 

7  o  o 

ballot. 

For  that  is  exactly  the  attitude  which  we  take  to 

%j 

Mormons,  who  affirm  primary  allegiance  to  their 
hierarchy.  Mere  is  the  case  of  a  man  asking  to  be 
naturalized  before  the  court,  who  vows  that  he  is  not 
a  polygamist,  but  does  believe  in  polygamy  ;  that  he 
is  a  Mormon,  and  if  a  polygamist  were  brought 
before  the  court,  he,  the  applicant  for  naturalization, 
would  not  as  a  juror  vote  to  condemn  his  fellow- 
Mormon  for  polygamy.  Whereupon  the  United 
States  Court,  in  an  elaborate,  learned,  and  rational 
opinion,  refused  to  naturalize  him,  on  this  ground, 
that  no  man  who  is  pledged  to  disobedience  to  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  or  who  is  pledged  to 
uphold  and  maintain  others  in  disobedience,  can,  or 
bv  right  should,  become  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  The  application  of  the  principle  would  dis¬ 
franchise  every  Roman  Catholic  in  America,  and 
ought  to.  Slowly  as  we  are  awakening  to  our 
dangers,  even  politicians,  much  more  statesmen,  are 
becoming  tilled  with  alarm  ;  while  all  wise  publicists 
are  recognizing  with  dread,  as  the  dangerous  element 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


139 


in  American  politics,  the  ecclesiastical  power  of 
Rome.  There  is  no  city  but  what  is  burdened 
with  it;  there  is  no  state  but  what  is  imperilled  by 
it :  and  the  whole  land  stands  in  the  shadow  of  an 
impending  peril,  a  thunderbolt  in  the  hand  of  this 
modern  Jove  of  the  Vatican,  that  may  yet  shatter  the 
nation  from  center  to  circumference. 

But  I  must  close  this  line  of  argument  and  proof, 
in  order  to  show  finally  what  are  the  results  of 
Roman  Catholic  supremacy.  They  have  been  privi¬ 
leged  to  try  the  experiment  of  absolute  government, 
and  what  has  been  the  consequence  ?  I  will  not  refer 
to  the  misgovernment  of  American  cities,  nor  point 
to  the  degradation  of  South  American  Republics  ;  I 
will  not  take  time  to  speak  to  you  of  prostrate 
Mexico,  of  ruined  Spain  and  Portugal,  and  of  down¬ 
trodden  Italy,  but  will  try  to  answer  the  question. 

4.  What  kind  of  government  comes  from  the 
Papal  plan,  where  they  have  absolute  sway  ?  I  answer, 
a  government  as  totally  unlike  ours  as  its  principles 
are  opposed  to  those  of  our  Constitution. 

In  the  Roman  States,  until  Papal  supremacy  was 
abolished,  the  people  suffered  under  one  of  the  worst 
governments  in  the  civilized  world.  The  people 
were  considered  as  so  many  tenants,  who  occupied 
and  enjoyed  the  Papal  estate  on  the  condition  fixed 
by  the  infallible  head  of  the  church,  for  her  welfare 
and  not  their  own.  They  were  possessed  of  no  civil 
rights  whatever,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  world  holds 
them  ;  but  only  such  privileges  as  their  sovereign,  the 
Pope,  thought  proper  to  confer  upon  them ;  and 


140 


Romanism  and  the  Republic , 


these  could  be  changed,  modified,  or  entirely  with¬ 
drawn  at  his  personal  discretion,  or  whenever  the 
interests  of  the  Church  should  require  it.  If  the 
Government  was  a  trust  held  alone  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Church,  as  Papists  allowed,  then  the  people  had 
no  right  to  demand  of  it  anything  on  their  own 
account.  The  government  was  conducted  wholly 
without  reference  to  them,  and  they  were  required  to 
submit,  whatever  it  did.  Popular  liberty  was  there¬ 
fore  unknown  and  impossible.  The  Papacy  alone 
was  free  to  do  as  it  pleased,  and  this  was  called  the 
freedom  of  the  Church.  The  people,  having  thus  no 
voice  in  public  affairs,  were  in  a  condition  of  vassal¬ 
age.  The  government  was  a  revival,  with  slight 
exceptions,  of  the  old  system  of  feudalism,  without 
its  redeeming  features.  There  was  no  written  con¬ 
stitution,  not  even  a  collection  of  precedents,  from 
which  the  citizen  could  learn  the  extent  of  the  privi¬ 
leges  conceded  to  him.  So,  whatever  of  fundamental 
law  there  was,  could  be  found  only  in  the  decrees, 
canons,  and  constitutions  of  councils,  and  the  bulls 
and  briefs  of  Popes,  published  in  a  language  which 
no  one  but  the  educated  nobility  could  understand. 
No  freedom  of  worship  was  allowed.  No  Bibles  in 
the  hands  of  the  common  people. 

The  Consul  of  the  United  States  at  Rome  for  four 
years,  until  1865,  W.  J.  Stillman,  reports  a  condition 
of  persecution  which  beggars  description.  Spies  were 
placed  at  the  doors  of  places  of  Protestant  worship  as 
they  were  at  the  door  of  our  church  last  Sunday  night, 
to  see  if  any  Roman  Catholic  went  in.  Men  were 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


141 


arrested  in  bed  at  night,  and  carried  off  by  officers 
of  the  holy  church,  and  never  heard  of  again,  for  no 
offense.  The  system  of  terrorism  was  such  that  lib¬ 
eral  Romans  dared  meet  only  in  public,  and  never 
permitted  a  stranger  to  approach  them  in  conversa¬ 
tion.  Says  the  Consul :  “I  can  conceive  of  no  sys¬ 
tem  of  torture  worse  than  this  terrible  espionage 
under  which  every  patriotic  Roman  lay,  fearful  of  his 
own  breath,  one  scarcely  daring  to  speak  to  another, 
except  in  tropes  and  innuendoes.  They  suffered  the 
penalty  of  crime  for  wishing  merely  to  be  free.  Had 
it  not  been  for  the  system  of  counter  espionage  kept 
up  by  the  Roman  committee  on  the  government,  no 
liberal  could  have  lived  in  Rome. 

The  Roman  government  of  that  time  (this  is  18(35) 
was  the  embodiment  of  the  spirit  of  the  middle  ages. 
Not  a  Bible  could  be  sold.  Not  a  voice  could  be 
heard  preaching  Christ  on  any  part  of  Italian  soil. 
The  punishment  for  such  offence  was  imprisonment, 
or  death.  The  few  friends  of  freedom,  sometimes  in 
caves,  sometimes  in  woods,  were  accustomed,  in  fear 
and  trembling,  to  meet  and  pray.  The  dungeons  of 
the  Inquisition  were  full.  The  stories  of  their  hor¬ 
rors  are  too  dreadful  to  be  told  here.  The  testimon¬ 
ies  of  De  Sanctis  and  Gavazzi  and  others,  which 
cannot  be  impeached,  open  before  us  damp,  dark 
dungeons,  where  men  and  women  were  starved  to 
death  ;  the  horrible  vats  where  they  were  put  alive 
into  quick-lime  to  perish  for  their  faith  ;  the  secret 
trap-doors  through  which  they  were  dropped, where 
their  cries  could  not  be  heard,  and  their  protests  were 


142 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


unknown.  Such  was  the  condition  of  the  people 
under  the  kind  of  Papal  supremacy  which  they  pro¬ 
pose  to  foist  upon  the  United  States  in  the  end  of 
the  nineteenth  century. 

In  Spain,  under  Queen  Isabella,  in  1860,  death  was 
the  penalty  for  heresy.  But  why  need  we  go  to 
Spain  or  Italy  for  proof  that  those  who  leave  the 
Homan  Church  are  subjects  of  tierce  and  violent  per¬ 
secution?  There  is  not  a  Homan  Catholic  in  this  or 
any  city  of  America  that  dares  to  leave  his  Church, 
unless  he  is  willing  to  bear  the  fiercest  imprecation, 
abuse,  ostracism,  slander  and  persecution  ;  while  all 
over  this  country,  when  men  and  women  have  con¬ 
fessed  Christ  instead  of  the  Pope  of  Home,  they 
have  been  spirited  away  and  imprisoned  in  Homan 
Catholic  institutions,  under  the  care  of  priests ;  and 
not  a  few  of  them  have  passed  from  within  those 
walls,  from  a  life  of  suffering,  to  the  only  place  of 
rest  which  they  could  find  — the  heavens  of  God. 

Wherever  Papal  power  prevails,  there  crime  in  all 
its  phases  is  greatly  increased.  There  are  more 
murders,  Sabbath-breaking,  drunkenness,  gambling, 
illegitimacy,  and  all  forms  of  crime,  in  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  than  Protestant  countries.  The  Pastoral  Letter 
of  the  Catholic  Council  of  Baltimore  in  I860,  says  — 
and  here,  you  see,  Homan  Catholics  are  speaking  for 
themselves — “It  is  a  melancholy  fact,  and  a  very 
humiliating  avowal  for  us  to  make,  that  a  verv  large 
proportion  of  the  idle  and  vicious  youths  of  our  prin¬ 
cipal  cities  are  the  children  of  Catholic  parents.” 

While  in  Homan  Catholic  Ireland  there  were  nine- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic 


143 

teen  murderers  to  the  million  of  population  ;  in 
Roman  Catholic  Belgium  eighteen  ;  in  Roman  Cath- 
olio  France  thirty-one  ;  in  Austria  thirty-six ;  in 
Barvaria  sixty-eight ;  Tuscany  fifty-six ;  while  in 
the  Papal  States  there  were  one  hundred  and  thirteen 
murderers  to  the  million  ;  in  Roman  Catholic  Sicily 
ninety  ;  in  Naples  one  hundred  and  seventy-four  ;  at 
the  same  time  there  were,  in  Protestant  England, 
only  four  murders  to  the  million.  Name  any  Pro¬ 
testant  country  in  Europe,  and  let  its  depths  of  vice 
and  immorality  be  measured  and  named,  and  I  will 
name  a  Roman  Catholic  country  or  city  whose 
depths  of  vice  and  immorality  are  lower  still.  (Bar- 
nura’s  “  Romanism  as  It  Is,”  chap,  xxvii.) 

The  disti  nguished  French  Catholic  Lavelaye,  pro¬ 
fessor  in  the  University  of  Liege,  in  a  celebrated 
pamphlet  on  “  Protestantism  and  Roman  Catholi¬ 
cism  in  their  relation  to  the  Liberty  and  Prosperity  of 
the  Nation,”  contrasts  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic 
countries  in  their  relative  progress,  social  condition, 
growth  of  power,  education,  enlightenment,  morals 
and  free  institutions,  and  in  those  contrasts,  confesses 
the  diminution,  degradation  and  weakening  of  Roman 
Catholic  nations,  and  the  education,  industry,  activity, 
expansion  and  power  of  Protestant  nations.  I  would 
that  I  could  quote  his  eloquent  words  at  length.  I 
am  only  denied  that  privilege  by  the  space  and  time 
of  which  I  may  make  use. 

“  A  few  years  ago,’:  he  says,  “  the  supremacy 
belonged  to  the  Catholics.  To-day,  place  on  the 
one  side  France,  Austria,  Spain,  Italy  and  South 


144 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


America,  and  on  the  other  side  Russia,  Germany, 
England  and  North  America,  and  evidently  the  pre¬ 
dominance  has  passed  over  to  the  heretics.  Nor  is 
it  difficult  to  point  out  the  causes. ”  Can  there  be 
any  soul  living  under  the  great  opportunities  which 
have  been  developed  by  Protestant  Christianity  in 
this  free  Republic,  who  would  wish  to  see  it  under 
the  influence  of  that  power  which  has  overwhelmed 
with  shame  and  crime,  with  ignorance  and  death, 
the  fairest  portions  of  the  world?  I  undertook  to 
show  that  Romanism  is  irreconcilably  hostile  to  our 
Constitution  and  laws,  and  to  all  other  forms  of  relig- 
ion  than  itself.  You  see  what  I  have  done.  I  have 
proved  that  Romanism  denies  the  supremacy  of  the 
Constitution  and  laws,  and  affirms  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope  and  the  Church.  They  deny  that  the 
people  under  God  are  supreme,  and  declare  that  the 
Pope  under  God  is  supreme.  The  Constitution 
guarantees  freedom  and  justice ;  the  Pope  attacks 
and  tries  to  break  down  all  Constitutional  guarantees 
of  freedom.  The  Constitution  forbids  Congress  to 
establish  any  religion  ;  the  Papacy  demands  that  it 
alone  be  established  by  law.  The  Constitution  for¬ 
bids  legislation  against  any  form  of  religious  worship, 
the  Papacy  demands  legislation  against  every  form 
of  worship  but  herself.  The  Constitution  protects 
freedom  of  conscience,  the  Papacy  pronounces  it  a 
delirium.  The  Constitution  guarantees  freedom  of 
speech  and  of  the  press,  Rome  denounces  both  as  a 
pest  and  a  pestilence.  The  Constitution  guarantees 
a  fair  and  open  trial  by  jury,  the  Papacy  commends, 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


145 


urges  and  employs  the  secret  tribunals  of  the  Inquisi¬ 
tion.  The  Constitution  forbids  cruel  and  excessive 
penalties  ;  the  Papacy  demands  torture  and  death  for 
heretics  and  claims  the  right  to  inflict  it.  The  Con- 
stitution  forbids  legislation  and  appropriations  by 
the  State  to  religious  sects ;  the  Romish  Church 
already  has  seized  millions  of  public  money  in 
defiance  of  law.  The  Constitution  taxes  justly  all 
property  ;  the  Romish  Church  demands,  and  by  fraud 
secures,  exemption  to  a  large  degree.  The  Consti¬ 
tution  demands  renunciation  of  foreign  allegiance 
from  all  citizens ;  the  Roman  Catholics  boldly  avow 
their  chief  allegiance  to  a  foreign  ruler.  The  Con- 
stitution  has  brought  the  largest  liberty  and  the 
greatest  prosperity ;  the  Papacy  has  cursed  the  lands 
where  it  has  ruled. 

Now  as  a  final  word.  Suppose  that  in  America 
there  were  six  or  seven  millions  of  Russians  who 
were  taking  the  same  attitude  toward  our  Govern¬ 
ment  as  the  Roman  Catholics  take.  Suppose  that 
they  personally  avowed,  as  a  matter  of  conscience 
and  duty,  their  primary  and  eternal  allegiance  to 
the  Czar, —  an  allegiance  he  should  also  announce  him¬ 
self  to  claim, and  from  which  he  would  not  absolve 
them.  And  suppose  that  this  foreign  body  in  our 
midst,  took  all  their  oaths  with  mental  reservation  of 
their  superior  devotion  to  the  Russian  Czar  and  the 
principles  of  his  absolute  monarchy.  And  suppose 
that  they  attacked,  denounced  and  defied,  personally, 
and  in  conclave,  and  through  their  leaders,  every 
principle  of  American  liberty,  including  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  which  is  the  foundation  of  our  rights  and  our  laws. 


146 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


And  suppose  that  they  announced  and  gave  it  out 
that  they  were  bound  to  obtain  the  supremacy  in 
this  country  ;  that  they  would  act  as  a  political  unit ; 
that  they  would  make  the  Czar  supreme  ;  and  that 
nothing  should  stand  in  their  way.  How  long 
would  the  seven  or  eight  times  as  many  loyal  Ameri¬ 
can-born  citizens  permit  this  body  of  foreigners  to 
flaunt  the  banners  of  absolutism  and  threaten  the 
overthrow  of  the  State?  One  of  two  things  is  cer- 
tain  :  that  foreign  body  would  be  compelled  either 
to  confess  primary  and  absolute  allegiance  to  this 
government  and  to  forego  all  treason  in  theory, 
speech  or  act ;  or  they  would  be  expelled  from  the 
country  by  an  irresistible  force.  They  would  be 
waited  on  in  the  name  of  the  nation,  and  would  be 
compelled  to  make  their  choice,  either  to  renounce 
allegiance  to  a  foreign  potentate,  or  to  leave  the 
country.  That  is  the  way  we  would  treat  disloyal 
Russians.  I  regard  the  rule  of  the  Czar,  and  my 
inference  is  drawn  from  reason  and  history,  as  much 
more  benevolent  than  the  rule  of  the  Pope  and  his 
ecclesiastics.  And  the  foreign  body  which  is  now 
among  us,  cursing  and  threatening  all  that  we  hold 
dear,  much  more  deserves  subjugation  and  expulsion 
than  the  subjects  of  any  other  foreign  ruler  or  power. 

In  the  name  of  the  Constitution,  which  I  believe 
will  hold  America  as  the  Polar  Star  holds  the  mag- 
net, — in  the  name  of  the  majesty  of  the  law,  that  like 
the  sun  in  the  heaven  has  flooded  this  Western  world 
with  the  glory  of  liberty, — we  demand  of  every  Roman 
Catholic,  that  he  either  renounce  political  allegiance 
to  a  foreign  prince,  or  leave  the  country. 


Sermon  U3L 

THE  PURPOSE  OF  „  ROMANISM  TO  DESTROY  OUR 

PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


You  will  find  my  text  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  the  tenth  chapter  and  the  fifteenth  verse  : 
“I  speak  as  to  wise  men;  judge  ye  what  I  say.” 

While  the  intense  interest  which  attaches  to  a  theme 

* 

that  is  so  personal  to  every  one  of  us  and  to  our  coun¬ 
try  may  lead  us  at  times  to  a  degree  of  earnestness, 
and,  in  denunciation,  of  possible  severity,  I  propose 
primarily,  in  all  these  discourses,  to  address  myself 
to  the  calm  reason  and  understanding  of  wise  men. 
Where  there  is  no  thoughtfulness,  where  passion 
holds  sway,  where  superstition  rather  than  reason 
controls  the  mind,  it  may  be  possible  to  secure  tem¬ 
porary  and  indeed  vigorous  interest  in  a  great  theme, 
by  merely  lashing  the  feelings  of  men  into  a  greater 
or  less  degree  of  earnestness  or  fury.  But  where 
the  interests  of  every  man  and  of  his  children  to  the 
latest  generation  are  at  stake,  where  the  affairs  of 
education  and  of  the  nation  are  deeply  involved, 
where  mistake  would  be  almost  fatal,  and  where 
vengeance  and  hatred  would  be  contrary  to  the  law  of 
Christ  and  the  law  of  the  land,  it  is  desirable  that 


148 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


our  highest  wisdom  be  exercised  and  our  best  judg¬ 
ment  employed. 

No  greater  compliment  can  be  paid  to  any  auditory 
than  that  which  the  sacred  writer  in  this  epistle 
paid  to  his  Corinthian  brethren,  when  arguing  with 
them  concerning  the  false  teachers  and  the  false  doc- 
trines  which  were  threatening  their  overthrow.  He 
says,  in  effect :  “I  desire  you  to  retire  into  the 
thoughtfulness  of  your  own  souls,  to  concentrate  all 
your  knowledge  and  all  your  wisdom  upon  the  facts 
which  I  am  discussing,  and  to  listen  to  what  I  say  as 
wise  men,  and  then  to  judge  whether  what  I  say  is  true 
or  not.”  I  take  this  word  as  my  sentiment  toward 
this  congregation  ;  and  because  you  are  the  final 
court  before  whom  this  and  many  similar  questions, 
must  be  adjudicated,  I  call  upon  you  all,  not  to 
awaken  your  prejudice  against  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  and  particularly  not  to  permit  prejudice  to 
move  you  against  the  Roman  Catholic  people ; 
but  I  call  upon  you  all  to  consider  whether  the 
facts  that  I  bring  to  your  attention  are  not  so 
momentous  as  to  deserve  your  most  careful  consider¬ 
ation,  and  to  call  for  most  responsible  and  vigorous 
action. 

It  is  my  purpose  to-night  to  show  to  you  that 
Romanism  intends  to  destroy  that  system  of  public 
education  which  we  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  as 
the  public  schools ;  and  in  order  to  that,  first,  that 
you  may  see  this  as  an  inference,  I  have  only  to  recall 
to  your  recollection  the  facts  that  have  been  empha¬ 
sized  in  the  last  two  discourses,  and  that  have  been 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  149 

supported  by  unbounded  testimony  from  the  most 
reliable  sources.  You  may  remember  that,  in  these 
discourses,  we  have  been  considering  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  and  the  Constitution  of  Roman¬ 
ism,  and  that  last  Sunday  evening,  at  the  close  of  the 
sermon,  I  reviewed  these  points,  almost  a  score  of 
them, in  which  the  Constitution  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  is  diametrically  and  wholly  opposed  to  the 
Constitution  which  is  the  basis  of  our  government 
and  the  stronghold  of  our  liberties.  If  you  were  not 
present  to  hear  that  review  you  should  read  it,  for 
I  want  you  to  know  that  the  summary  which  was 
made  at  that  time  showed  the  irreconcilable  antag¬ 
onism  of  the  absolutism  of  Rome  to  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States. 

Now  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  a 
political  document :  it  is  not  a  religious  pronuncia- 
mento  ;  it  is  not  a  declaration  of  religious  faith  or 
religious  creed  ;  but  it  is  a  declaration  of  those  prin¬ 
ciples  which  can  make  a  great  Republic,  and  which 
have  already  made  this  nation,  in  every  essential 
respect,  the  rival,  if  not  the  superior,  of  almost  every 
nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  When,  therefore, 
you  find  that  Romanism  antagonizes  this  political 
document ;  and  when  you  find  that  the  principles  of 
civil  liberty,  which  are  necessary  to  every  state,  and 
which  are  declared  in  the  Constitution  in  order  to 
form  the  basis  of  a  state,  are  the  objects  of  the  hos¬ 
tility  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  when  you  find 
that  a  document  which  says  nothing  about  religion, 
excepting  to  say  that  it  shall  have  free  exercise,  is 


150 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


denounced  and  proscribed  with  the  fiercest  hatred 
by  the  statutes  of  that  Church,  your  inference  must 
be  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  descended 
from  the  sphere  of  religion  to  the  arena  of  politics, 
and  that,  as  a  political  power,  it  has  assailed  a  politi¬ 
cal  instrument. 

There  is  no  other  church  in  America  that  has  antag¬ 
onized  the  Constitution  ;  no  other  church  that  has 
pronounced  against  it ;  no  other  church  but  what 
cordially  supports  it.  The  Churches  operate  in  the 
domain  of  religion ;  and  it  is  their  intention  and 
purpose,  by  saturating  the  public  mind  with  religi¬ 
ous  principles,  to  make  the  State  what  now  it  is  to 
some  extent,  a  Christian  State.  For  this  is  his¬ 
torically  and  actually  a  Protestant  State  ;  there  is  no 
question  about  that;  its  history  shows  the  fact. 
When,  therefore,  Romanism  attacks  our  political 
institutions,  reviles  and  antagonizes  our  national  con- 
stitutions,  asserts  its  authority  over  our  political 
opinions  and  annuls  political  statutes,  demands  that 
the  realm  of  politics,  as  well  as  of  education  and  faith, 
shall  be  subjected  to  it  —  when  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  enters  the  arena  of  political  conflict  as  a  polit¬ 
ical  force,  it  has  no  right  whatever  to  claim  the 
immunities  of  a  religion.  It  is  there  as  a  political 
power,  and  as  a  political  power  we  meet  it.  It  does 
not  make  any  difference  whether  the  political  power 
that  assails  us  is  on  the  shores  of  the  Baltic,  or  on 
the  shores  of  the  British  Channel,  or  on  the  shores 
of  the  Tiber.  Romanism,  attacking  our  Constitution 
and  our  State,  is  simply  a  political  engine. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


151 


Now  with  our  politics,  as  embodied  in  the  Consti¬ 
tution,  our  common  schools  are  in  direct  accord,  and 
have  been  since  the  origin  of  the  government.  If 
you  survey  the  history  of  past  times,  you  will  find 
that  the  Constitution  and  the  general  intelligence  of 
the  country,  which  grew  out  of  our  schools,  were 
contemporaneous  in  their  origin.  You  will  find  that 
there  has  never  been  a  time  when  any  statesman  in 
America,  however  jealous  of  the  authority  of  the 
Constitution,  has  ever  hinted  that  the  common 
schools  were  unfriendly  to  it.  You  will  find,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  every  American  statesman,  and  that 
everv  student  of  civil  government,  declares  that  with 
the  Constitution  and  the  theories  of  the  United  States 
our  common  schools  are  in  full  accord  ;  and,  going 
farther,  states,  that  on  the  general  intelligence  which 
they  diffuse,  must  depend  that  Constitution  for  all 
time  to  come. 

Moreover,  you  can  see  rationally  that  a  system  of 
public  education  must  belong  to  a  Republican  gov¬ 
ernment,  (  and  I  use  that  word  exactly  as  I  would 
use  the  word  Democratic,  for  the  two  words  mean 
the  same,  as  I  employ  them  now  not  in  a  partisan 
sense,)  I  say,  you  can  see  very  clearly ,  that  in  a 
Republican  government,  where  the  citizen  is  a  final 
authority,  and  where  the  voter  is  king,  everything 
depends  on  the  ability  of  that  ruler  to  exercise  his 
powers  wisely  and  discreetly.  You  may  see  there¬ 
fore,  that  in  our  form  of  government,  under  our  Con¬ 
stitution,  every  voter  ought  to  know  how  not  only 
to  govern  himself,  but  to  help  to  govern  the  State  ; 


152 


Romani* m  and  the  Republic. 


and  that  our  schools,  therefore,  are  of  inlinite  import¬ 
ance  for  the  common  people.  No  doubt,  in  a  mon¬ 
archical  or  an  oligarchical  form  of  government,  only  a 
few  need  to  be  educated,  and  only  a  few  are  edu¬ 
cated.  Where  a  few  persons  are  to  exercise  all  the 
political  authority,  the  more  ignorant  the  rest  are  the 
better  the  rulers  like  it. 

You  have  an  illustration  of  that  in  the  Southern 
United  States  of  America  when  they  were  having  an 
oligarchical  and  unrepublican  form  of  government. 
They  had  no  common  schools,  because  they  thought 
that  the  more  degraded  the  colored  man  was  the 


more  easily  he  could  be  governed.  And  so,  while 
the  upper  classes  of  the  South  had  the  best  possible 
education,  the  lower  classes  had  none  at  all.  This 
was  not  the  outgrowth  of  our  Constitutional  govern- 
ment,  nor  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  American 
liberty,  but  it  was  the  result  of  an  abnormal  form  of 
civilization,  of  a  barbaric  institution  which  was  for  a 
time  attached  to  our  Republican  Constitution.  Just 
as  soon  as  Constitutional  government  had  sway  in 
the  South,  as  soon  the  whole  people  were  recognized 
as  the  source  of  authority  in  government,  every 
Southern  State  began  a  system  of  common  schools, 
and  they  are  diffusing,  exactly  as  the  Northern  States 
have  done,  education  among  the  people  as  an  essential 
of  a  form  of  Constitutional  and  Republican  govern¬ 
ment. 

Now  Romanism  is  an  absolute  monarchy  ;  it  is  a 
despotic  form  of  government :  its  idea  has  always 
been  that  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devotion.  I 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


153 


have  only  to  point  to  the  States  where  it  has  had 
sway  to  prove  this,  as  I  have  done  heretofore.  And 
Romanism,  in  its  monarchial  theory  of  government, 
which  dictates  to  all  men  instead  of  reasoning  with 
them,  and  which  commands  them  instead  of  teaching 
them  to  exercise  self-command, —  Romanism,  by  its 
intrinsically  monarchial  character,  can  never  agree 
with  the  essentials  of  a  free  Constitution,  nor  uphold 
its  supports  and  bulwarks. 

While,  therefore,  the  public  schools  are  abso¬ 
lutely  indispensable  under  our  Constitution,  such, 
public  schools  are  recognized  by  Rome  as  abso¬ 
lutely  hostile  to  theirs.  I  shall  come,  ere  long, 
to  show  from  their  own  words,  that  this  is  true ; 
I  state  it  now,  and  prove  it  hereafter.  No 
wonder  then,  that  when  they  attack  our  institutions, 
they  attack  them  at  the  point  which  projects  farthest 
out  against  Papal  policy.  No  wonder  that  the  Redan 
of  our  civilization,  (for  you  remember  that  the  Redan 
at  Sebastopol  was  the  great  bulwark  of  Russia  against 
the  might  of  the  allied  forces,) — no  wonder  that  the 
main  defences  of  our  civilization  are  the  first  object 
of  their  assaults.  Against  our  common  schools  Rome 
is  throwing  all  the  weight  of  its  power ;  not  because 
the  common  schools  alone  are  the  objects  of  its  hos¬ 
tility,  but  because  the  Constitution  which  our  educa¬ 
tional  system  supports  is  the  real  object  of  their 
assault. 

Now  so  far  as  the  benefits  are  concerned  that 
have  been  conferred  and  are  being  diffused  over 
the  world  by  free  America  to-day,  as  compared 


154 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


with  those  that  are  being  conferred  by  the  Church 
of  Koine,  there  is  a  great  deal  to  be  said  in 
favor  of  the  good  influence  of  America.  Contrast 
any  country  where  Rome  has  had  sway  with 
ours,  and  are  you  not  immediately  compelled 
to  affirm,  that  the  United  States  is  giving  more 
intelligence,  more  morality,  more  reverence  for 
law,  more  self-government,  more  happiness,  more 
wealth  than  Rome  has  ever  given  to  any  state  for 
the  last  thousand  years  ?  And  if  I  to-day  were  called 
upon,  in  noting  the  great  agents  which  are  benefit- 
ting  mankind,  to  decide  whether  Romanism,  or  politi¬ 
cal  America  as  we  see  it  to-day,  was  the  greatest  bene¬ 
factor  of  the  race, — if  I  were  called  upon  to  decide 
which  of  the  two  should  cease  to  exist, — as  a  lover  of 
humanity  and  a  lover  of  God,  I  should  prefer  to  keep 
America  in  the  world  for  the  world’s  good,  rather 
than  to  keep  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

After  thus  much  of  an  introduction,  which  shows 
vou  that  Rome  is  unreconciled  to  our  schools,  because, 
as  a  political  power,  it  is  unreconciled  to  our  govern¬ 
ment,  I  propose  to  show  you,  first,  That  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  denounces  violently  our  public 
schools.  I  propose  to  show  you,  secondly,  That  she 
is  threatening  them  with  overthrow  and  destruction. 
I  propose,  thirdly,  To  bring  to  your  attention  the 
agencies  which  she  has  put  in  operation  for  their 
destruction.  I  propose,  fourthly,  To  ask  why?  and 
to  give  you  the  reasons  they  allege  why  they  do 
it  ;  and  then  to  give  you  the  real  reasons  which 
they  elsewhere  state.  And  I  propose  at  that  point 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


155 


to  close  this  discourse,  and  on  next  Sunday  evening 
I  design  to  take  it  up  and  tell  you  what  they  will 
put  in  its  place :  when  the  common  schools  are 
destroyed,  what  they  demand  shall  he  substituted 
for  common  schools ;  what  has  been  the  result  of 
their  system  where  it  has  been  tried,  for  it  has  been 
fully  tried.  And  then  to  ask  you,  how  much  you  are 
willing  to  yield  ;  and  how  much  you  are  willing  to  do 
in  the  line  of  resistance. 

1.  First,  then,  I  ask  you  to  notice  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  through  its  hierarchs  and  governing 
powers,  is  openly  hostile  to  our  public  schools. 
In  order  to  prove  that,  I  shall  quote  from  the  follow¬ 
ing  authorities:  From  the  Encyclical  of  the  Pope; 
from  the  declarations  of  the  Roman  Catholic  press  ; 
from  the  opinions  of  their  Councils  ;  and  from  the 
words  of  their  bishops.  This  book  which  I  hold  in 
my  hand  is  entitled,  “  The  Judges  of  Faith  :  Christ¬ 
ian  vs.  Godless  Schools.”  I  bought  it  myself  at  a 
Roman  Catholic  book-store  in  Boston,  and  it  is 
endorsed  by  a  large  number  of  Roman  Catholic  pre¬ 
lates.  It  is  said  in  the  preface  :  “  It  may  be  worthy 
of  remark,  that  these  pages  contain  the  conciliar,  or 
single  rulings  of  no  less  than  three  hundred  and 
eighty  of  the  high  and  the  highest  Church  dignitaries.” 
There  are  brought  forward  twenty-one  Plenary  and 
Provincial  Councils,  six  or  seven  Diocesan  Synods, 
two  Roman  Pontiffs,  two  Sacred  Congregations  of 
some  twenty  Cardinals  and  Pontifical  Officials,  seven 
single  Cardinals,  who,  with  thirty-three  Archbishops, 
make  forty  Primates  and  Metropolitans ;  finally, 


156 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


nearly  eighty  single  Bishops  and  Archbishops 
deceased  or  living  in  the  United  States.  It  says,  in 
the  first  page  of  acknowledgment :  “Thanks  and 
humble  acknowledgments  are  due,  and  never  to  be 
sufficiently  repaid,  to  His  Eminence  John  Henry 
Cardinal  Newman,  His  Grace  the  Most  Rev.  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Baltimore,  Delegate  Apostolic,  James 
Gibbons,  D.  D.,  and  Most  Rev.  Patrick  J.  Riordan, 
Archbishop  of  San  Francisco,  of  Archiepiscopal 
rank,  and  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishops  :  John  J. 
Hogan  of  St.  Joseph’s  and  Kansas  City,  John  J. 
Keane  of  Richmond  (  who  was  in  this  city  the  other 
day,  I  believe),  John  L.  Spalding,  of  Peoria,  Francis 
Janssens,  of  Natchez,”  and  others.  This  then  is 
fully  sanctioned  and  endorsed,  and  represents  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church. 

First  of  all,  I  quote  from  the  Papal  Encyclical, 
to  show  you  how  the  Pope,  who  is  the  infallible  head 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  regards  our  public 
schools.  Says  he:  “The  Romish  Church  has  the 
right  to  interfere  in  the  discipline  of  the  public 
schools,  and  in  the  arrangement  of  studies  of  public 
schools,  and  in  the  choice  of  the  teachers  of  these 
schools.  Public  schools,  open  to  all  children  for  the 
education  of  the  young,  should  be  under  the  control 
of  the  Romish  Church,  and  should  not  be  subject  to 
the  civil  power,  nor  made  to  conform  to  the  opinions 
of  the  age.”  (Encyclical  XLY.  and  XL  VII.)  Those 
schools  to-day  are  under  the  control  of  the  civil 
power  and  are  not  under  the  control  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  ;  but  that  authority,  which  is  as  much 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


157 


to  them  as  the  Bible  is  to  you,  and  possibly  more, 
declares  that  our  schools  shall  not  be  as  they  now 
are,  an  adjunct  of  the  civil  state,  but  shall  come 
under  the  power  of  the  Roman  hierarchy.  In  this: 
book  which  I  have  described,  and  have  before  me,  we 
have  the  declaration  made  that  the  public  schools  are 
to  be  destroyed,  their  buildings  are  to  be  deserted, 
and  the  whole  system  to  be  abandoned. 

I  quote  from  “  The  Judges  of  Faith.”  On  page  3 
it  is  said  :  “  These  pages  make  no  pretense  to  dictate 
to  either  state  or  individual  in  their  own  provinces  ; 
neither  is  it  expected  of,  or  designed  by  a  Catholic 
that  he  should  aid  in  any  secret  conspiracy  for  the 
bootless  enterprise  of  suddenly  overthrowing  a  pub¬ 
lic  legal  system,  unlawful  though  that  system  be. 
We  bring  home  to  the  consciences  of  Catholics,  that 
it  is  their  duty  to  continue  deserting  all  mere  secular 
schools,  and  building  schools  of  their  own,  until 
public  opinion  itself  undermine  what  contains  the 
source  of  its  own  downfall,  (now  notice  this  last 
word)  and  we  be  relieved  of  unjust  taxes”  And  on 
the  sixth  page  it  is  said:  “The  equal  advance  of 
God-hating  European  societies  with  God-eliminating 
systems  of  popular  instruction,  ought  to  enforce, 
co-operation  with  the  simultaneous,  energetic  action 
of  our  glorious  Leo,”  (I  just  read  from  the  Encyclical 
what  “glorious  Leo ’’thinks)  “  smiting  with  one  arm 
the  audacious  chiefs  of  secret  revolutions,  while  with 
the  other  he  shields  the  cradles  and  firesides  of 
Christian  homes.  And  Catholics  will  continue  buikk 
ing  schools  on  their  own  grounds;  until,  like  the 

O  O'7 


158 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


many  deserted  sectarian  temples  which  are  legally 
acquired  by  inpouring  children  of  the  Church,  the 
future  state-school  buildings,  left  empty  by  Catholics 
deserting  them,  and  non-Catholics  becoming  practi¬ 
cally  disgusted  with  the  unrepublican  and  unchris¬ 
tian  system,  shall  also  be  lawfully  acquired,  and 
occupied  by  denominational  schools.”  This  hope,  as 
the  rest  of  the  book,  is  sanctioned  by  the  prelates 
indicated. 

You  see,  then,  that  their  purpose,  their  explicit 
purpose,  is  to  so  break  down  our  system  of  common 
schools  until  the  school  buildings  shall  be  deserted. 

Now  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  opinions  of 
some  of  their  bishops,  who  have  made  declarations 
along  the  same  line.  “The  faithful  are  required, 
by  conforming  to  the  words  of  Christ’s  Vicegerent, 
their  head  and  the  head  of  all  the  militant  faithful, 
to  break  down  these  schools  ;  bv  doing  their  bounden 
duty  in  every  country  where  the  government,  or 
others,  publicly  or  privately,  seek  to  divorce  edu¬ 
cation  from  religion,  by  tearing  the  children  of  the 
Church  from  her  bosom,  to  nurse  them  on  the  lap 
of  the  Pagan  goddess  of  Liberty.”  On  the  eighty- 
sixth  page  we  have  the  following  declaration  :  “  The 
doctrine  that  godless  schools  are  good  enough  for 
Catholic  children,  is  explicitly  condemned  by  the 
authority  of  the  Church.”  This  is  the  declaration  of 
the  late  Bishop  Rosecrans,  in  Lent  1873.  Then  fol¬ 
lows  this  remarkable  statement:  “The  sons  of  the 
Crusaders  are  not  yet  extinct.  They  live, they  breathe, 
they  fight ;  not  now  for  the  sepulchre  of  Christ,  for 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  159 

the  honor  of  the  dead  now  risen  to  die  no  more,  hut 
for  his  cradle,  and  that  of  His  holy  spouse,  the 
Church;  for  the  living  sons  of  God,  foully  betrayed, 
robbed  and  plundered  of  goods  and  spiritual  life  by 
the  ruthless  of  the  nineteenth  century. ”  That  is 
supposed  to  describe  our  school  system.  On  the 
eighty-seventh  page  it  is  declared,  by  the  late  lit. 
Rev.  Dr.  Toebbe,  Bishop  of  Covington  :  “  The  Public 
Schools  are  infidel  and  godless,  and  must  therefore 
be  avoided.”  On  the  eighty-ninth  page  we  have  the 
same  declaration,  in  the  following  words,  from  the 
Bishop  St.  Palais,  of  Vincennes,  Indiana,  who.  is 
characterized  as  a  saint :  “We  object  to  the  public 
schools  on  account  of  the  infidel  source  from  which 
they  originated,”  (there  is  history  for  you  !)  ;  “we 
object  to  those  schools  because  the  teachings  of 
religion  is  excluded  from  them,  and  such  exclusion 
will  inevitably  produce  religious  indifference,  if  not 
infidelity.  We  object  to  these  schools  again,  because 
the  promiscuous  assembling  of  both  sexes  of  a  cer¬ 
tain  age  is  injurious  to  the  morals  of  the  children  ; 
and  because  we  dread  associations  which  might, 
in  time,  prove  pernicious  to  them,  and  distressing 
to  their  parents.”  And  later,  on  page  ninety,  he 
says,  that  duty  compels  him  to  instruct  pastors  to 
refuse  absolution  to  parents  who  permit  their  chil¬ 
dren  to  attend  the  public  schools.  On  page  ninety- 
seven  you  have  another  important  opinion  of  the 
same  spirit,  wherein  it  is  said,  by  the  Rt.  Rev. 
Francis  Janssens,  Bishop  of  Natchez,  “  That  since 
the  public  schools  were  bound  by  Constitution  to 


160 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


leave  out  religion,  and  teach  science  without  inculcat¬ 
ing  God,  His  doctrines,  His  commands ;  hence,  the 
public  school  system  should  be  looked  upon  by  every 
Christian  not  only  as  insufficient,  but  as  positively 
dangerous,  promoting,  of  its  very  nature,  indifferent- 
ism,  if  not  infidelity.”  When  you  remember  the 
authority  that  Romish  Bishops  have  in  their  Church, 
and  that  their  word  is  law  for  the  priests  who  are 
under  them  ;  when  you  remember  that  these  priests, 
carrying  out  the  law  of  their  Bishops,  make  those 
Bishops  a  most  dangerous  power  against  what  they 
oppose  ;  when  you  recall  all  these  declarations  which 
are  unqualifiedly  against  our  system  of  public  edu¬ 
cation  ;  then  you  can  understand  that  their  whole 
influence,  as  well  as  their  fiercest  denunciations,  hurled 
at  this  method  of  imparting  public  instruction,  are 
intending  to  destroy  the  system  they  denounce. 

But  now,  suppose  we  turn  to  the  public  press  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  hear  what  that,  as 
further  representing  the  influence  of  the  prelates,  is 
ready  to  say ;  for  the  public  press  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  is  an  organ  of  the  dignitaries,  rather 
than  an  organ  of  the  people.  In  the  Boston  Globe , 
a  representative  of  Rome  wrote,  in  1885  :  “  We  want 
to  make  our  children  good  Catholics  ;  which  is  the 
same  as  making  them  good  Christians.  We  must 
have  positive  Christian  schools,  with  entire  liberty  of 
religious  instruction,  even  at  the  expense  of  building 
and  supporting  them,  and  though  we  should  empty 
half  the  grand  school-buildings  in  Boston,  and  ^ive 

o  o  Q 

them  to  be  sold  at  public  auction  to  the  highest 
bidder.” 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


161 


We  have  also  a  still  further  declaration  from  Roman 
Catholic  writers,  this  time  from  the  Boston  Adver¬ 
tiser,  wherein  a  Catholic  priest  says:  “Catholics 
would  not  he  satisfied  with  the  public  schools,  even 
if  the  Protestant  Bible  and  every  vestige  of  religious 
teaching  were  banished  from  them.  They  will  not  be 
taxed  either  for  educating  the  children  of  Protestants, 
or  for  having  their  own  children  educated  in  schools 
under  Protestant  control.”  The  New  York  Tab¬ 
let  says:  “  The  education  itself  is  the  business  of 
the  spiritual  society  alone,  and  not  the  secuhir  society. 
The  instruction  of  children  and  youth  is  included  in  the 
sacrament  of  Order,  and  the  State  usurps  the  func¬ 
tions  of  the  spiritual  society  when  it  turns  educator. 
The  secular  is  for  the  spiritual,  is  subordinated  to 
religion  ;  which  alone  has  authority  to  instruct  man 
in  his  secular  duties.  The  organization  of  the 
schools,  their  entire  internal  arrangement  and  man¬ 
agement,  the  choice  and  regulation  of  studies,  the 
selection,  appointment,  and  dismissal  of  teachers, 
belongs  exclusively  to  the  spiritual  authority.” 

So,  one  after  another,  the  authorized  agents  and 
representatives  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
denounce  our  schools  in  the  most  violent  language. 
They  call  them  godless,  infidel.  The  New  York 
Freeman's  Journal  calls  them  “  pits  of  destruction.” 
It  states  how  the  little  lambs  of  the  Church  fall  into 
them,  and  calls  them  “a  devouring  fire.”  It  warns 
parents  that  their  children  will  be  lost  forever  if  they 
go  to  these  schools  ;  and  in  the  language  which  is 
best  calculated  to  stir  the  heart  of  a  Roman  Catholic, 


162 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


denounces  those  that  come  under  the  influence  of  our 
system  of  public  instruction.  (N.  Y.  Freeman's  Jour¬ 
nal,  Dec.  11,  1869.)  Now  all  this  is  intended,  as 
you  plainly  see,  to  discredit  the  public  schools,  and  to 
raise  hostility  against  them  on  the  part  of  Roman 
Catholic  people,  and  on  the  part  of  Roman  Catholic 
children. 

But  they  not  only  declare  their  hostility,  they 
also  declare  their  purpose  to  overthrow  these  schools. 
I  quote  now  concerning  their  purpose,  as  follows  : 
Mr.  Parton  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  of  May,  1860, 
in  an  article  on  “  Our  Roman  Catholic  Brethren,” 
said,  that,  judging  from  the  past,  they  conclude  that 
in  the  year  1900  they  will  count  one-third  of  the 
population  of  the  country,  and  perhaps  a  majority  of 
the  controlling  cities  and  states  of  it ;  and  of  the 
extent  to  which  they  hope  to  change  American  insti¬ 
tutions,  should  they  obtain  the  power,  the  Catholic 
World  of  July,  1870,  gives  this  interesting  informa¬ 
tion  :  “  The  supremacy  asserted  for  the  Church  in 
matters  of  education,  implies  the  additional  and  cog¬ 
nate  functions  of  the  censorship  of  ideas,  and  the 
right  to  examine  and  approve,  or  disapprove,  all 
books,  publications,  writings  and  utterances  intended 
for  public  instruction,  enlightenment,  or  entertain¬ 
ment,  and  the  supervision  of  places  of  amusement.” 
(It  maybe  that  this  censorship  is  what  is  now  affecting 
the  papers  of  our  city  and  preventing  their  publica¬ 
tion  of  stirring  matters  of  common  interest.)  “  The 
cognate  functions  of  the  censorship  of  ideas  and  the 
right  to  examine  and  approve,  or  disapprove,  all 


Homan  ism  and  the  Republic. 


163 


books,  publications,  writings  and  utterances”  (  per¬ 
haps  that  refers  to  me,  and  to  all  utterances  of  the  pul¬ 
pit  which  they  would  censure  and  suppress)  “intended 
for  public  instruction,  enlightenment  or  entertain¬ 
ment.”  In  other  words,  their  threat  implies  not  only 
the  overthrow  of  our  schools,  but  the  censorship  and 
overthrow  of  all  our  provisions  for  free  speech  and 
free  utterance. 

I  now  quote  from  Monsignor  Capel,  a  very  dis¬ 
tinguished  Roman  Catholic,  who  made  a  tour  through 
the  countiy,  and  stopped  a  long  time  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  where  he  was  the  object  of  very  great 
attention.  His  utterances  concerning  the  purpose  of 
Rome  were  amon^  the  boldest  ever  ofiven  in  this 
country,  and  among  them  are  the  following.  In  the 
interview  with  Capel  —  an  interview  by  Mr.  H.  A. 
Cram,  recorded  in  his  “  Further  Consideration  of  the 
So-called  Freedom-of- Worship  Bill,”  to  the  question 
“  "Whom  must  we  obey,  if  the  State  should  command 
the  citizen  to  do  one  thing,  and  the  Church  should 
command  him  to  do  another  ?  ”  Monsignor  Capol 
replied :  “  Then  he  must  obey  the  Church,  of 

course.”  The  Monsignor  remarked,  that  the  thing 
that  was  troubling  him  the  most  seriously  was  the 
school  question  ;  and  he  added :  “I  have  not  yet 
spoken  upon  this  definitely,  but  I  shall  go  to  Wash¬ 
ington  when  Congress  is  in  session,  and  make  a  for¬ 
mal  declaration  which  shall  carry  some  authority  with 
it ;  for  I  am  pursuing  a  careful  study  of  your  whole 
school  system.  The  result  is,  there  is  going  to  be  a 
fight — there  are  a  good  many  Catholics  in  this  country. 


164 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


eight  millions,  somebody  says.  Your  public  school 
system  is  inadequate  for  them,  and  they  are  going 
to  leave  it.  Suppose  that  the  Church  sends  out  a 
command  to  State  schools  in  every  parish  to  establish 
and  support  parochial  schools  and  send  all  Catholics 
to  them.  He  says  :  “It  can  be  done  by  the  utterance 
of  a  word ,  sharp  as  the  click  of  a  trigger .”  Mon¬ 
signor  Capel !  the  American  people  are  not  afraid  of 
the  click  of  a  trigger.  We  have  heard  it  within  the 
past  twenty-tive  years. 

“That  command,”  he  says,  “will  be  obeyed;  new 
schools  will  spring  up  everywhere.  What  will  be 
the  result  of  that?  A  fight.  If  it  is  not  a  down¬ 
right  fight,  it  will  be  at  least  the  war-like  condition, 
a  million  or  two  of  voting,  tax-paying  citizens  war¬ 
like  to  the  Government,”  etc.  To  the  prediction  of 
a  fi<rht,  unless  America  submits  to  all  the  demands  of 
Rome,  we  are  already  accustomed.  The  Catholic 
Herald  of  May  24,  1879,  is  quoted  as  saying, 
“  that  a  most  awful  conflict  between  the  power  of 
£ood  and  evil  is  in  the  near  future,  and  that  the  fate 
of  the  Republic  depends  on  the  result.”  And  so 
cool  and  experienced  an  observer  as  General  Grant 
said:  “If  we  are  to  have  another  contest,  in  the 
near  future  of  our  national  existence,  it  will  be 
between  patriotism  and  intelligence  on  one  side,  and 
superstition,  ambition  and  ignorance  on  the  other.” 
He  was  awake  to  the  threatenings  of  Romanism,  as 
you  see  ;  and  he  closed  that  memorable  warning  with 
the  words,  “  Keep  the  Church  and  State  forever 
separate.” 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


1 65 


Now,  in  addition  to  this  attitude  of  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  Church,  in  which  they  are  already  threatening 
to  destroy  our  schools  (  and  I  have  not  yet  read  it  all, 
there  is  more  to  follow  which  will  come  in  due  order) , 
there  is  a  definite  demand  made  by  them  for  a  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  school  moneys.  I  say,  there  is  a  definite 
demand  made  by  them  for  a  division  of  the  school 
moneys.  On  page  41  of  “  Judges  of  Faith,”  there 
is  an  explicit  demand  that  the  schools  of  this  country 
be  divided  into  Popish  and  Protestant.  Not  only  is 
the  demand  made  there  ;  but  the  New  York  Tablet 
of  Nov.  27,  1866,  now  twenty  years  ago,  said  this  : 
“  Appropriate  to  the  support  of  Catholic  schools  the 
proportion  of  the  public  money  according  to  the 
number  of  children  they  educate,  and  leave  the  selec¬ 
tion  of  teachers,  the  studies,  the  discipline,  the  whole 
internal  management  to  the  Catholic  educational 
authorities.”  That  demand  has  been  often  repeated 
since  twenty  years  ago.  We  have  also  the  same 
lemand,  in  almost  the  same  language,  from  the  Bishop 
:>f  Trenton.  On  the  118th  page  of  this  book,  the 
Bishop  of  Trenton  makes  the  following  remark : 
“  These  schools,”  he  says,  in  closing  up  his  indict¬ 
ment  against  them,  44  impose  an  enormous  tax,  every 
year  growing  greater,  upon  the  entire  community. 
and  a  vert/  unjust  and  unnecessary  tax  upon  a  large 
section  of  that  community.”  Bishop  McQuaid  of 
Rochester  says  :  “  No  Catholic  is  in  harmony  with  the 
Church  who  maintains  opinions  opposed  to  these 
teachings  against  the  public  schools.  It  is  absurd  to 
say  that  one  Bishop  more  than  another  insists  on 


166 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


the  establishment  of  Catholic  schools.  It  is  not  left 
to  the  Bishops  to  choose  in  this  matter.”  And  so  he 
ofoes  on  still  further  in  the  same  line. 

The  demand  is  in  the  air,  that  the  Roman  Catholics 
shall  have  a  portion  of  the  public  money  appropriated 
to  their  schools.  In  the  day  when  our  school  fund  is 
divided  and  is  given  to  sects,  in  violation  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  in  that  da}^  our  school- 
system  gets  its  death-blow ;  and  in  the  day  that 
our  school  system  gets  its  death-blow,  the  intel¬ 
ligent  citizenship  of  America  begins  to  stagger 
under  the  same  stroke.  When  the  State  schools 
in  Belgium,  where  Rome  has  vast  power,  were 
crippled  and  nearly  destroyed,  this  book  indi¬ 
cates,  there  was  almost  general,  universal  exul¬ 
tation  ;  and  I  presume  they  expect  a  similar  degree 
of  jubilation  and  gladness  in  this  country  over  a 
similar  catastrophe. 

And  now,  as  against  these  statements,  we  hear  the 
denial  of  a  priest  of  Worcester,  however  patriotic, 
who  brands  as  bigots  those  who  know  the  purposes 
of  Rome  and  state  them,  whose  eloquent  voice  not 
long  since  was  pleading  for  Ireland,  a  voice  now 
silenced  under  the  authority  of  the  Pope  ;  whose 
patriotic  heart  was  beating  openly  the  other  day  for 
his  dear  Ireland,  that  dare  now  only  in  secret  pulsate 
in  its  behalf,  because  of  the  Papal  rescript!  It  may 
be  worth  while  for  him  while  he  dares,  lest  Rome 
shall  stop  him  as  she  has  stopped  him  once, —  it  may 
be  worth  while  for  him  to  say  that  the  purposes  of 
Rome  are  in  harmony  with  the  welfare  of  this 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


167 


country  ;  hut  when  the  Bishops  of  America  speak  as 
in  this  book,  and  the  Pope  and  the  Baltimore  Council, 
with  hundreds  of  foreign  Bishops,  I  am  compelled, 
however  much  1  respect  this  voice  crying  in  the 
wilderness,  to  listen  to  what  is  the  real  declaration 
of  Rome,  instead  of  pinning  my  faith  on  the  state¬ 
ments  of  a  heart  not  yet  dead,  who  ought  not  to  be 
where  he  now  is,  under  the  tyranny  of  a  power  that 
crushes  out  manhood.  Do  not  be  imposed  upon  by 
your  personal  respect  or  love  for  any  individual 
priest  of  Rome,  for  if  he  strikes  for  America,  he  turns 
his  back  on  the  Pope. 

The  Baltimore  Plenary  Council,  we  are  told  in 
this  book,  devoted  fifty  of  one  hundred  and  eighty 
pages  to  schools,  and  in  their  denunciations  they 
traverse  about  the  same  ground  that  I  have  already 
gone  over,  making  it  the  duty  of  every  priest  to  see 
there  is  a  parochial  school  in  his  parish,  and  making 
it  incumbent  upon  him  to  get  all  the  children  to 
attend  the  parochial  schools  under  threat  of  the  dis¬ 
pleasure  of  the  Church,  and  under  threat  of  personal 
displeasure  also. 

3.  That  brings  me  now  to  speak  of  the  enginery 
they  have  put  in  operation  in  order  to  carry  out 
their  will ;  and  I  will  endeavor  to  speak  of  it  as 
briefly  as  I  may.  The  power  that  is  brought  to  bear 
on  the  Bishops  of  the  Roman  Catholie  Church,  in 
order  that  they  shall  destroy  our  system  of  public 
education,  is  spoken  of  on  page  118  of  this  Roman 
Catholic  book,  where  it  is  declared  that  there  is  no 
option  with  the  Bishops  whether  they  shall  favor  the 


Ttonumixm  and  the  Republic. 


168 

establishment  of  parochial  schools  and  the  with¬ 
drawal  of  the  children  from  the  public  schools,  or  not. 
They  simply  are  compelled  to  do  it.  In  relation  to 
the  priests,  the  same  attitude  has  been  taken.  Every 
priest  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  was  compelled 
by  the  Baltimore  Council  to  do  his  utmost  for  the 
establishment  of  parochial  schools,  under  penalty  of 
their  displeasure.  This  is  what  the  Council  says; 
and  this  is  what  it  says  about  the  priests.  Hear  the 
decree  of  the  Council:  1.  “We  determine  and 
decree,  that  hard  by  every  church,  where  it  does  not 
already  exist,  a  parochial  school  is  to  be  erected 
within  two  years  of  the  promulgation  of  this  Council 
(January  6,  1886),  and  to  be  kept  up  in  the  future  ; 
unless  the  Bishop  see  tit  to  grant  a  further  delay  on 
account  of  more  than  ordinary  grave  difficulties  to 
be  overcome  in  its  establishment.  2.  That  a  priest 
who,  within  the  aforesaid  time,  hinders  by  serious 
negligence  the  building  and  maintainance  of  a 
school,  or  does  not  regard  the  repeated  admonitions 
of  the  Bishop,  deserves  removal  from  that  Church. ** 
And  again  they  say  :  “  The  priest’s  promotion  to  an 
irremovable  rectorate,  or  other  dignity,  will  depend 
upon  their  care  of  their  schools that  is  to  say* 
under  the  fear  of  the  displeasure  of  the  Church* 
these  wifeless  and  childless  men,  whose  all  is  in  the 
Church,  are  told  that,  unless  they  put  forth  their 
utmost  endeavors  to  get  all  their  children  out  of  the 
schools  of  this  country  and  put  them  in  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  schools,  they  shall  not  be  promoted, —  which  is 
the  darling  desire  of  their  heart. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


169 


And  when  it  comes  to  their  influence  on  the  mem¬ 
bers,  they  bring  to  bear  a  still  stronger  power. 
Now  it  is  a  perfectly  well-known  fact,  that  there  are 
thousands  of  Roman  Catholics  who  sincerely  love  the 
public  schools,  and  who  are  very  reluctant  to  take 
their  children  out  of  those  schools.  You  find  that 
almost  every  Roman  Catholic  who  has  been  trained 
in  our  public  schools  has  respect  for  them  ;  and  you 
will  find  that  he  prefers  that  his  children  shall  go  to 
them  rather  than  to  the  priests’  schools.  How  is  he 
to  be  prevented  from  sending  his  children  to  them? 
Why,  all  through  this  book,  the  threat  is  ringing 
from  Bishop  to  Bishop,  that  when  a  Roman  Catholic 
declines  to  take  his  children  out  of  the  public  schools, 
he  is  at  issue  with  the  church  ;  that  is,  in  antagonism 
to  it ;  and  the  Archbishops  have  given  it  as  their 
opinion,  and  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  Rome  as 
their  opinion,  and  the  Baltimore  Plenary  Council  as 
their  opinion,  that  in  case  the  Roman  Catholic  popu¬ 
lation  do  not  take  their  children  out  of  the  public 
schools,  they  shall  be  refused  absolution  at  the  con¬ 
fessional.  What  does  that  mean?  Why  it  means 
this  :  You  and  I  believe  that  God  forgives  our  sins. 
We  go  to  Him  in  prayer,  and  expect  from  Him  not 
only  forgiveness  as  he  has  promised,  but  also  the 
conscious  evidence  of  that  forgiveness  in  peace  in  our 
hearts.  The  Roman  Catholic  expects  his  absolution 
at  the  hands  of  the  priests.  Every  Roman  Catholic 
lives  in  mortal  terror  of  dying  without  priestly  absolu¬ 
tion.  If  he  dies  without  having  made  confession  and 
received  that  absolution,  he  has  no  hope  of  anything 


170  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

but  eternal  damnation,  and  if  he  lives  without  that 
absolution,  he  lives  in  mortal  sin,  and  under  the  ban 
of  the  church.  Now  these  priests  are  everywhere 
instructed — and  I  could  read  it  to  you  over  and 
over  from  this  book,  and  quote  the  pages  from  which 
it  is  taken, — that  they  may  refuse  absolution  to  par¬ 
ents  who  keep  their  children  in  the  public  schools. 
Is  that  mortal  sin?  Is  it  a  mortal  sin,  endangering1  a 
man’s  eternal  future,  for  him  to  give  his  children  the 
benefit  of  American  schools  ? 

So  says  the  Church.  Let  me  give  you  an  example 
of  that,  in  the  declaration  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Boston,  whom,  we  would  suppose,  on  account  of  his 
living  in  Boston,  to  be  a  liberal-minded  patriot.  He 
is  far  from  it.  On  page  one  hundred  and  thirteen  of 
“  The  Judges  of  Faith,”  we  have  some  very  inter¬ 
esting  disclosures.  Before  that,  I  will  give  you  the 
benefit  of  the  following,  on  page  one  hundred  and 
twelve:  “It  is  notorious  among  the  old  stock  of 
English  descendants,  that  New  England  is  fast 
becoming  New  Ireland  [We  earnestly  pray  that  New 
England  may  never  become  New  Ireland,  since  the 
Ireland  of  the  Bishop  is  the  slave  of  the  Pope]  ; 
and  the  land  of  the  Cotton  Mathers  and  Eliots  is 
transforming  into  the  inheritance  of  the  martyred 
Rasies,  Jogues  (Jesuits),  and  their  children,  the 
meek  sons  of  the  Church.  Schools  are  bound  to  fol¬ 
low  their  counterparts,  the  congregations  of  the  faith¬ 
ful,”  and  so  on.  Further  :  “Though  it  was  thought 
by  those  more  conservative  that  the  time  had  hardly 
arrived  for  anything  like  a  general  reversal  of  for- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


171 


mer  toleration  of  even  the  best  common  schools  of 
Catholics,  it  was  not  long  until  there  were  dis¬ 
covered  many  more  practical  supporters  of  the 
change  than  was  at  all  suspicioned  —  thanks,  per¬ 
haps,  to  certain  Roman  hints.”  This  was  after 
many  liberal-minded  Romanists  protested  against 
priest  Scully’s  brutality  in  Cambridge. 

And  here  is  the  following  from  Archbishop 
Williams  of  Boston  :  “  Any  priest,  however,  hearing 
confessions,  in  the  private  tribunal  of  penance,  is 
free,  in  the  exercise  of  his  faculties,  in  this  as  in  all 
other  cases,  to  give  or  withhold  absolution,  guided  by 
the  disposition  of  the  penitent  and  his  own  judg¬ 
ment  and  discretion,  and  his  knowledge  of  the  facts 
and  principles  involved.”  (p.  115.)  That  is  to  say, 
if  a  Roman  Catholic  is  contumacious,  and  tells  his 
priest  he  will  not  take  his  children  out  of  the  public 
school,  and  put  them  into  the  parochial  school,  he 
may  be  refused  absolution  by  the  priest.  This  in 
Boston,  Massachusetts.  And  this  fearful  threat 
han^s  over  every  Roman  Catholic.  You  and  I  lau<di 
at  priestly  absolution  :  the  Roman  Catholic  trembles 
under  the  lack  of  it,  and  thinks  his  salvation  depends 
on  receiving  it.  This,  then,  is  the  enginery  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  proposes  to  use  in  order 
to  accomplish  its  ends.  We  had  supposed,  until 
we  had  so  many  of  these  highly  enlightened  people 
among  us  from  over  the  sea,  that  our  common 
schools  were  very  good,  very  helpful  to  civilization 
and  the  community,  helpful  to  morals,  and  a  bulwark 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


172 


llor nanism  and  the  Republic . 


4.  They  have  taken  this  highly  antagonistic 
attitude ;  we  would  like  to  know  why  they  have 
taken  it.  Among  the  very  first  answers  is  this  ; 
The  first  position  that  the  Roman  Catholics  took  in 
this  country  against  the  schools,  was,  that  we  had 
Bibles  in  them,  and  those  Bibles,  they  said,  were 
sectarian  books  ;  consequently,  if  the  schools  had 
Bibles  in  them,  they  were  sectarian  schools.  Reply¬ 
ing,  we  said  :  First  of  all,  the  Bible  is  not  a  sectarian 
book.  The  translation  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
English  or  Douay  Bible  is  from  the  Vulgate,  and  is 
notoriously  a  corrupted  version.  And  I  challenge 
Roman  Catholic  scholarship,  (and  remember  here  I 
say  “  scholarship  I  do  not  now  refer  to  the  ignorant 
denunciations  of  priest  or  Bishop)— I  challenge  them 
to  show  that  the  Bible,  as  we  have  it,  is  not  made  up 
from  the  collation  of  the  very  best  Greek  manu¬ 
scripts  ;  while  their  Vulgate  is  an  imperfect  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  But  that  is  of  very 
little  account  to  them  after  all. 

You  remember,  that  even  their  own  Douay  Bible  is 
not  in  the  hands  of  their  people.  You  remember 
that  Bible  Societies  have  been  denounced  by  their 
Popes  from  the  first  as  a  pestilence.  You  remember 
that  1  have  read  to  you  here,  in  the  language  of  their 
Popes,  that  the  Bible,  in  the  hands  of  the  common 
people,  is  dangerous.  All  this  we.  have  learned 
from  them  ;  and  yet  when  they  protested  that  it  was 
unfair  to  have  the  Bible  in  schools,  we  were  willing, 
for  the  sake  of  peace,  in  a  great  many  cases,  to  let  it 
"o  out.  No  sooner  had  the  Bible  been  taken  out  of 

O 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


173 


the  schools,  than  they  specifically  stated  that  they 
did  not  care  a  penny  whether  the  Bible  was  in  them 
or  not.  Let  me  read  to  you  their  exact  language. 
The  Freeman's  Journal  of  November  20,  1869,  says  : 
4 4  If  the  Catholic  translation  of  the  books  of  Holy 
Writ,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  homes  of  all  our 
better  educated  Catholics,  were  to  be  dissected  by 
the  ablest  Catholic  theologians  in  the  land,  and  merely 
lessons  take  from  it,  such  as  Catholic  mothers  read 
to  their  children  ;  and  with  all  the  notes  and  com¬ 
ments  in  the  popular  edition,  and  others  added  with 
the  highest  Catholic  indorsement ;  and  if  these  admir¬ 
able  Bible  lessons,  and  these  alone,  were  to  be  ruled  as 
to  be  read  in  all  the  public  schools,  this  would  not 
diminish  in  any  substantial  degree  the  objections  we 
Catholics  have  to  letting  Catholic  children  attend  the 
'public  schools .”  Now  you  know  what  a  hue-and-crv 
has  been  made  against  the  Bible  in  the  schools  ;  but 
here  is  the  authoritative  declaration,  that  it  does  not 
make  any  real  difference  to  them  whether  the  Bible 
is  there  or  not.  It  is  the  schools  they  wish  to  blot 
out,  not  merely  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools. 
It  adds  as  follows  :  “The  Catholic  solution  of  this 
muddle  about  Bible  or  no  Bible  in  the  public  schools, 
is  —  hands  off.  No  state  taxation  or  donations  for 
any  schools.  You  look  to  your  children,  and  we 
will  look  to  ours.”  (I  notice,  our  police  have  to 
look  to  theirs.)  “  We  don’t  want  you  to  be  taxed 
for  Catholic  schools  ;  we  don’t  want  to  be  taxed  for 
Protestant  or  godless  schools.  Let  the  public  school 
system  go  to  where  it  came  from  —  the  devil." 


174 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


That  is  the  New  York  Freeman's  Journal ,  of  Nov. 
20,  1869,  one  of  the  most  respectable  Catholic  pub¬ 
lications  in  America.  You  understand  then,  do  you? 
I  think  we  all  do. 

Then,  just  as  soon  as  the  Bible  was  taken  out  of 
the  schools,  what  did  they  say?  “  Your  schools  are 
godless.  Your  schools  are  without  religion.  Your 
schools  are  infidel.  Your  schools  are  immoral.” 
I  have  not  time  to  take  that  matter  up  in  full  detail, 
only  I  will  say  this  ;  that  we  cannot  claim  that  our 
public  schools  teach  religion  as  a  principal  branch ; 
but  they  have  always  taught  morality  and  religi¬ 
ous  principle,  and  excepting  for  the  opposition  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  they  would  be  teaching  it 
now  far  more  than  they  are  ;  and  moreover,  our  pub¬ 
lic  schools  are  not  more  godless  than  the  business 
of  Christian  men  is  godless  who  carry  on  their  busi¬ 
ness  on  Christian  principles. 

3.  The  third  reason  alleged  against  our  public 
schools,  why  they  hate  them  so,  is  that  they  are 
immoral.  The  pages  of  this  book,  from  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  the  Sacred  Congregation  to  the  declarations 


of  the  Bishops,  teem  with  references  and  dark  hints 
and  subtle  suggestions  and  open  statements  that  our 
schools  are  terribly  immoral ;  that  it  is  perilous  for 
any  Catholic  child  to  go  to  them,  on  the  ground  that 
it  sinks  him  in  the  slums  of  immorality. 

And  this  impeachment  conies  from  a  Church  that 
furnishes  nine-tenths  of  all  the  hoodlums  in  our 
streets.  This  comes  from  a  Church  that  furnishes 
seventy-five  to  eighty  per  cent,  of  the  crime  in  New 


ltomanixm  and  the  llepublie. 


175 


York  city.  This  comes  from  a  Church  whose  the¬ 
ology  is  so  vile  that  it  cannot  be  translated  into 
English,  lest  the  translator  be  taken  up  for  publishing 
obscene  literature.  This  comes  from  a  Church  whose 
priests  ask,  and  are  compelled  to  ask,  questions  of 
bo  vs  and  girls  in  the  confessional,  that  are  not  tit  to* 
be  repeated  even  between  grown  men,  unless  they 
are  physicians.  Immorality,  forsooth,  in  our  public 
schools  !  The  public  schools  criticised  as  dangerous 
to  morality  !  If,  for  their  visible  immorality,  on 
such  complaint  the  public  schools  should  be  sunk  in 
the  depths  of  the  sea  as  a  punishment,  by  the  same 
standard  of  justice,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  should 
be  sunk  into  hell.  “  I  am  not  mad,  most  noble 
Festus.  I  speak  forth  the  words  of  truth  and  sober¬ 
ness.”  I  simply  draw  my  inference  from  the  stand¬ 
ard  of  judgment  which  they  have  made. 

But  now,  what  are  the  real  reasons  why  they  hate 
our  public  schools  ;  for  the  above  are  plainly  not  the 
real  reasons.  What  are  the  real  reasons?  The  first 
reason  is, —  that  they  claim — Popes,  Bishops  and  all, 
— that  our  schools,  perpetuated  and  patronized,  would 
result  in  the  destruction  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith. 

That  is  what  they  say.  Here  listen  to  “  The 
chief  guardian  of  souls  on  earth.”  (That  is,  Leo 
XIII.  Thanks  be  to  God,  my  soul  is  i}ot  under  his 
guardianship  !)  Listen  to  the  chief  guardian  of  souls 
on  earth:  “The  design  of  withdrawing  primary 
schools  from  the  control  of  the  Church,  and  the  exer¬ 
tions  made  to  carry  it  into  effect,  are,  therefore r 
inspired  by  a  spirit  of  hostility  toward  her,  and  by 


17(>  Jtomuniisiu  caul  the  Republic. 

the  desire  of  extinguishing  among  the  people  the 
divine  light  of  our  holy  faith.” 

That  is  what  they  say.  They  are  afraid  that  the 
schools  will  extinguish  the  light  of  their  Church. 
The  schools  must  be  destroyed  to  save  Romanism. 
Listen  to  what  is  said  on  page  122  of  this  book. 
The  Archbishop  sums  up, —  that  is  Cardinal  Gibbons, 
Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  Administrator  Apostolic, 
&c, —  in  a  pastoral  letter  :  “If  no  provision  is  made 
for  the  Christian  culture  of  the  rising  youth,  it  is  to 
be  feared  that,  twenty  years  hence,  it  will  be  much 
easier  to  find  churches  for  a  congregation  than  a  con¬ 
gregation  for  our  churches.”  Again  he  says:  “It 
may  safely  be  asserted,  that  the  future  status  of 
Catholicity  in  the  United  States  is  to  be  determined 
by  the  success  or  failure  of  our  day  schools.” 

Now  you  know  the  exact  reason.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  in  antagonism  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  in  antagonism  to  the 
common  schools  as  the  support  of  that  Constitution, 
endeavoring  to  foist  its  absolute  tyranny  upon  the 
American  people,  says  :  We  cannot  do  it  if  you 
have  your  public  schools.  And  we  answer :  You 
will  not  do  it,  then,  till  the  day  of  judgment ! 

Our  schools  teach  loyalty.  I  have  been  in 
the  public  schools.  I  remember  that  little  school- 
house  on  the  hillside  in  a  distant  country  town  in 
Rhode  Island,  where  a  beautiful  woman,  now  in 
heaven,  inspired  me  both  with  respect  for  her  sex 
and  ambition  for  learning ;  where  I  went  in  summer¬ 
time,  bare-footed,  and  with  humble  clothing,  and 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


177 


learned  the  value  of  education  by  patient  strivings, 
and  was  inspired  to  go  further  in  its  pursuit.  I 
have  been  in  the  public  schools,  not  as  you  have 
them  here  in  the  cities,  in  all  their  glory,  but  as  we 
had  them  on  the  hills  of  New  England.  And  this 
is  what  I  remember  was  taught  in  those  schools  : 
Loyalty  and  love  for  the  State  ;  loyalty  and  love  for 
man.  I  remember  the  day  brave  old  John  Brown  was 
hung  (I  was  only  a  little  lad,)  :  in  our  school  we 
almost  covered  our  faces  and  wept,  to  think  that  so 
brave  and  good  a  man  was  dying  that  hour  for  his 
fellowmen.  We  were  taught  there  the  principles  of 
the  Constitution.  We  were  taught  that  the  people 
were  the  source  of  political  authority  in  the  United 
States,  under  God.  We  were  taught  that  every 
child  had  the  same  rights  as  every  other,  and  every 
citizen  had  the  same  rights  as  everv  other.  We  were 
taught  history  for  the  sake  of  knowing  the  truth,  and 
there  was  nobody  there  that  was  afraid  to  have  the 
truth  told  in  history.  We  were  taught  science,  and 
that  we  need  not  fear  that  what  God  revealed  in 
nature  man  might  study  in  books.  We  were  taught 
the  principles  of  religion.  We  were  taught  to 
fear  and  reverence  God  ;  and  when,  on  the  Lord’s 
day,  there  used  to  come  from  far  the  Christian 
people  of  our  neighborhood,  to  that  old,  unpainted 
school-house,  they  opened  the  Bible  and  let  us  read 
it  for  ourselves,  and  so  we  learned  something  about 
the  great  and  good  God.  That  seems  to  be  very 
helpful  both  to  the  State  and  to  the  person ;  but  that 
can  never  co-exist  with  Romanism,  so  they  say 
who  speak  for  that  system  of  ecclesiasticism. 


178 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


What  is  all  this  cry  of  fair-play  coming  to  ere  long? 
For  Roman  Catholics  are  saying  :  “If  you  are  fair,  you 
will  let  us  have  our  own  schools,  and  will  give  us  a 
share  of  the  money.”  “If  you  are  fair,”  said  Jefferson 
Davis  and  Southern  rebels,  “you  will  let  us  alone.  All 
we  ask  is,  to  be  let  alone.”  If  you  are  just  and  patri¬ 
otic,  said  the  spirit  which  awoke  when  the  guns  thun¬ 
dered  on  Sumter,  if  you  are  just  and  patriotic,  you  will 
suppress  rebellion  and  save  the  country.  There  is  the 
difference  in  the  theory  of  duty,  the  difference  in  the 
theory  of  fair  play.  If  you  are  fair,  says  Rome,  you 
will  give  up  to  us  our  schools,  and  you  will  help  pay 
for  them.  If  you  love  America,  says  the  rising  spirit 
of  this  country,  you  will  save  the  schools,  whatever 
the  Pope  says.  This  matter  of  fair  play  is  an  inter¬ 
esting  matter,  with  clearly  defined  bounds.  When 
everybody  else  rises  up  and  wants  the  same  kind  of 
fair  play,  you  see  what  will  happen  to  our  schools. 
But  two  or  three  weeks  ago,  in  the  city  of  Brooklyn, 
New  York,  at  the  commencement  of  one  of  their  pub¬ 
lic  schools,  a  little  girl  mounted  the  platform,  and 
recited  a  poem  against  intemperance  and  licensing 
the  saloon.  She  described  in  that  poem,  in  her  child¬ 
ish  way,  the  poor  man’s  wife  begging  the  saloon¬ 
keeper  that  he  would  not  sell  liquor  to  her  husband ; 
but  he  said  he  had  a  license,  and  wrent  on  and 
sold  it,  and  she  told  what  was  the  result.  And 
as  she  described  it  in  the  pathetic  way,  which  is  not 
half  so  pathetic  in  description  as  in  fact,  she  did  not 
know  what  afterwards  was  disclosed,  that  there,  on 
the  platform,  sat  a  rumseller,  who  was  licensed  and 
who  had  several  children  in  that  school.  The  rum- 


Homan  ism  and  the  Republic. 


179 


seller  was  exceedingly  disturbed  and  greatly  excited, 
and  no  sooner  were  the  exercises  over  than  he  began 
roundly  to  denounce  the  management  of  the  public 
schools  that  had  dared  to  insult  him  by  having  the  poem 
repeated.  He  called  together  a  lot  of  his  associates 
in  the  saloon  business ,  and  they  prepared  and  signed 
a  remonstrance  against  having  any  of  that  kind  of 
declaration  in  the  public  schools,  because  it  was  not 
fair  to  rumsellers.  That  is  a  matter  of  current  news 
in  our  religious  papers  within  the  last  two  weeks. 
Now  there  are  two  hundred  thousand  rumsellers  in 
the  United  States,  and  they  will  want  everything 
taken  out  of  our  school  books  and  out  of  our 
school  exercises  that  looks  towards  censure  of  the 
liquor  traffic  ;  just  exactly  as  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  wants  everything  taken  out  of  our  school 
books  that  does  not  favor  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
Now,  you  will  be  fair  with  liquor  saloonists,  will  you 
not?  Oh,  do  !  Now  suppose  here  comes  the  Hebrew, 
and  says :  You  have  on  all  your  text-books  the 
figures  1871,  2,  3,  etc.,  as  the  date  of  publication. 
That  is  Christianity  :  that  is  not  fair  to  us.  Our 
school  children  open  their  text-books  and  see  that  as 
they  read,  and  they  say,  What  does  this  mean?  That 
means  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  That  is  anti-Juda¬ 
ism.  And  suppose  all  our  Jewish  fellow-citizens 
should  rise  up  and  say,  Do  be  fair  with  us.  Give  us 
our  own  text-books  and  our  own  schools.  Then,  after 
them  all,  the  Quakers  might  come,  and  say  :  Your 
books  praise  the  heroism  and  glories  of  war.  You 
have  in  them  “  Sheridan’s  Ride,”  and  “  The  Battle  of 
Ivry,”  and  “  The  Battle  of  Nasby,”  and  all  that  kind 


180 


It  or  nanism  and  the  Republic . 


of  composition  ;  and  that  so  teaches  the  glory  of  war, 
which  we  reprobate,  that  we  want  these  compositions 
taken  out,  or  else  we  want  our  own  schools. 

And  then  the  Christian  Scientist  comes  along,  and 
says  :  Why,  you  have  praised  there,  in  several  places, 
the  givingof  medicines  by  physicians,  which  is  all  a 
humbug,  and  is  contrary  to  our  conscience  ;  and  we  do 
not  want  anything  of  that  kind  in  our  text-books  and 
in  our  schools.  Give  us  schools  of  our  own,  and  our 
share  of  the  public  money.  Then  the  Englishmen 
come  along  and  say  :  Now,  see  here  !  you  have  some 
things  in  your  public  schools  about  England  oppress¬ 
ing  Ireland,  and  we  do  not  believe  in  that ;  the  speech 
of  Robert  Emmet  for  example.  And  the  Home- 
Rule  Irishman  says  :  You  have  things  there  about  the 
glory,  greatness  and  beneficence  of  England,  and  we 
do  not  believe  in  that  at  all.  Come  right  along, 
gentlemen  :  you  shall  all  have  fair  play.  Tear  in 
pieces  our  whole  system  of  schools.  Let  each  one 
take  shreds  and  fragments  of  a  dismembered  and 
ruined  country,  and  then  we  can  all  drop  back  into 
barbarism,  and  see  what  beauty  there  is  in  fair  play, 
as  you  call  it.  No  ;  the  fairest  of  fair  play,  the  most 
beneficent  course  of  action  to  take  to  all  classes  of 
citizens,  is  to  maintain  in  its  integrity  our  common- 
school  system,  undestroyed  and  undivided.  I  will 
tell  you  what  Romanism  wants  in  our  public  schools, 
and  I  shall  prove  it  when  we  meet  again  :  Romanism 
wants  Rome  dominant  in  our  public  schools  ;  Rome 
for  the  controlling  power,  with  priests  for  the  ruling 
agents,  the  Bishops  for  governors,  and  the  Pope  for 
dictator  ;  and  this  Rome  will  never  get  ! 


Sermon  FE3L 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  ROMANISM  TO  DESTROY  OUR 
PUBLIC  SCHOOLS:  THEIR  ALLEGED 
AND  ACTUAL  REASONS. 


My  discourse  to-night  is  a  continuation  of  that  of 
last  Sunday  evening,  and  I  resume  by  inviting  your 
attention  to  the  same  text  as  we  then  used,  which 
you  will  find  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
the  tenth  chapter  and  the  fifteenth  verse  :  “I  speak 
as  to  wise  men  :  judge  ye  what  I  say.”  Before  the 
army  of  the  Tennessee,  in  1876,  General  Grant  used 
the  following  weighty  words:  “If  we  are  to  have 
another  contest  in  the  near  future  of  our  national 
existence,  I  predict  that  the  dividing  line  will  not  be 
Mason  and  Dixon’s,  but  it  will  be  between  patriot¬ 
ism  and  intelligence  on  one  side,  and  superstition, 
ambition  and  ignorance  on  the  other.  In  this  cen¬ 
tennial  year,  the  work  of  strengthening  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  structure  laid  by  our  forefathers  one  hun¬ 
dred  years  ago,  should  be  begun.  Let  us  all  labor 
for  the  security  of  free  thought,  free  speech,  free 
press,  and  pure  morals,  unfettered  religious  senti¬ 
ments,  and  equal  rights  and  privileges  for  all  men, 
irrespective  of  nationality,  color  or  religion. 


182 


Homan  ism  and  the  Republic. 


Encourage  free  schools ,  and  resolve  that  not  one  dol¬ 
lar  appropriated  to  them  shall  be  applied  to  the  sup¬ 
port  of  any  sectarian  school :  resolve  that  any  child 
in  the  land  may  get  a  common  school  education, 
unmixed  with  atheistic, pagan,  or  sectarian  teachings  ; 
Keep  the  Church  and  State  forever  separate .”  He 
also  wrote,  when  President,  in  his  message  to  Con¬ 
gress,  recommending  the  passage  of  an  amendment 
to  the  national  Constitution,  “prohibiting  the  grant¬ 
ing  of  any  school  funds  or  school  taxes,  or  any  part 
thereof,  either  by  legislative,  municipal  or  other 
authority,  for  the  benefit,  or  in  aid,  directly  or  indi¬ 
rectly,  of  any  religious  sect  or  denomination  ;  or  in 
aid,  or  for  the  benefit  of  any  other  object  of  any 
nature  or  kind  whatsoever.”  Thus  thiswise  patriot 
and  statesman,  anticipating  the  very  danger  which 
we  are  now  confronting  —  a  demand  for  a  division  of 
the  school  funds,  a  part  to  be  used  for  sectarian  pur¬ 
poses  —  urged  that  an  amendment  should  be  made  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  forever  pro¬ 
hibiting  such  misuse.  President  Garfield,  in  his 
letter  of  acceptance,  July  12,  1880,  said:  “Next  in 
importance  to  freedom  and  justice,  is  popular  educa¬ 
tion,  without  which  neither  freedom  nor  justice  can 
be  permanently  maintained.  It  would  be  unjust  to 
our  people,  and  dangerous  to  our  institutions,  to 
apply  any  portion  of  the  revenue  of  the  nation,  or  of 
the  State,  to  the  support  of  sectarian  schools.  The 
separation  of  the  Church  and  the  State,  in  everything 
relating  to  taxation,  should  be  absolute.”  The 
Republican  party  of  that  year  dared  to  say  that  this 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


183 


ought  to  be  the  policy  of  the  nation.  This  year 
they  did  not  dare  to  say  it.  Here,  then,  we  have 
the  statements  of  two  of  the  greatest  of  the  statesmen 
of  America  in  favor  of  the  public-school  system  as 
we  have  it ;  and  you  will  remember  that  both  these 
men  were  poor  boys,  and  if  it  had  not  been  for  our 
system  of  public  education,  they  probably  would 
never  have  arrived  at  the  dignity  which  they  achieved. 
The  public  school  system  primarily  is  established  for 
the  poor,  and  not  for  the  rich.  The  rich  can  compass 
an  excellent  education  for  their  children  at  any  time 
by  the  use  of  their  money.  It  is  not  for  the  sake  of 
the  most  favored  class  in  our  community  that  the  free 
schools  should  be  maintained  ;  but  the  public  school 
is  particularly  instituted  to  educate  the  children  of 
those  who  otherwise  could  not  give  their  children  a 
£Ood  education  ;  and  because  it  is  so  instituted  and 
is  so  especially  advantageous  to  the  poor,  it  ought 
particularly  to  command  the  suffrages  of  a  very 
large  majority  of  this  nation.  Now  it  is  against  this 
system  of  benevolent  education,  which  is  so  clearly 
in  the  interests  of  Constitutional  liberty,  that  the 
hierarchy  of  Rome  is  throwing  all  its  power,  as  I 
told  you  last  Sunday  night.  To  review  a  little  ;  for 
by  their  own  words  we  prove  that  they  endeavor  to 
discredit  our  school  system  by  declaring  their  antag¬ 
onism  to  it,  and  by  violently  denouncing  it.  They 
have  already  threatened  it  in  the  strongest  and  most 
earnest  language,  and  have  declared  their  purpose, 
the  Pope,  and  the  Baltimore  Council,  and  a  large 
number  of  bishops  and  prelates,  to  destroy  it.  I 


184 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


also  brought  to  your  attention  the  fact,  that  already 
the  attempt  has  been  made  to  secure  a  division  of 
the  school  fund,  and  that  the  tax,  as  now  used,  has 
been  protested  against  in  numerous  cases  as  unjust. 
Then  I  showed  you  —  and  you  have  not  fogotten  it, 
and  will  not  —  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 
using  all  the  enginery  of  which  it  is  possessed,  to 
compel  its  people  to  abandon  our  free  schools  for  the 
parochial  schools,  and  that  bishop  after  bishop  had 
intimated  that  his  priests  would  be  directed,  as  they 
were  already  empowered,  to  refuse  absolution  to 
any  of  their  people  who  do  not  take  their  children 
out  of  our  public  schools.  Then  we  paid  some  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  alleged  reasons  why  they  take  this  course. 
First,  that  the  Bible  was  in  the  schools.  (1  then 
showed  how  they  repudiated  that  reason  as  soon  as 
the  Bible  was  taken  out.)  Again,  that  our  schools 
were  godless  ;  and  then  I  brought  to  your  attention 
the  fact  that  that  was  not  the  real  reason.  I  believe, 
also,  that  1  spoke  in  reference  to  their  claim  that  our 
schools  were  immoral ;  and  suggested  that  such  a 
protest  from  such  a  source  was  hardly  in  keeping 
with  2food  taste.  Then  I  read  to  vou  what  were  the 
real  reasons  why  they  desire  to  destroy  our  school 
system,  and  I  quoted  from  Cardinal- Archbishop 
(ribbons  the  following  statement  :  “It  may  safely 
be  asserted,  that  the  future  status  of  Catholicity  in 
the  United  States  is  to  be  determined  by  the  suc¬ 
cess  or  failure  of  our  day  schools.” 

Having  made  it  perfectly  plain,  then,  that  they 
had  drawn  the  lines  of  conflict  between  Romanism  and 


Romanism  and  the  Republic 


185 


the  Constitution,  with  all  that  supports  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  and  that  they  were  antagonizing  the  public 
schools  because  they  were  afraid  that  the  pul >lic 
schools  would  destroy  the  power  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  hierarchy  in  this  country,  I  then,  for  a 
moment,  dwelt  on  the  folly  of  supposing  that  we 
could  divide  up  piece-meal  our  school-fund  as  they 
desire,  and  as  the  rumsellers  of  Brooklyn  and  of  the 
country  desire,  and  as  a  great  many  other  partisans 
might  desire,  without  utterly  destroying  the  system 
and  ruining  the  State.  Having  proceeded  as  far  as 
this,  I  was  compelled,  almost  abruptly,  to  pause. 

But  now,  on  this  occasion,  I  wish  to  bring  to  your 
attention  another  of  the  alleged  reasons  which  they 
urge.  I  want  to  show  you  that  the  claim  that  it  is 
in  violation  of  the  conscience  of  Roman  Catholics 
that  we  should  have  our  system  of  free  schools  is  a 
fallacious  claim  ;  and  that  the  call  for  a  division  of 
the  school  funds  on  grounds  of  conscience,  in  case 
they  have  their  own  parochial  schools,  is  also  on  falla¬ 
cious  ground.  Then  I  want  to  show  you,  that,  after 
antagonizing  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  they  are  with 
equal  urgency  setting  themselves  against  true  and 
correct  history  in  the  schools.  I  shall  then  proceed 
further  to  show  that  their  antagonism  is  not  confined 
to  history,  but  is  also  against  literature  and  science  ; 
and  by  the  time  I  have  closed  this  evening’s  dis¬ 
course,  I  shall  have  made  it  plain  to  you,  that  nearly 
all  of  what  we  call  Truth  has  been  denounced  by  the 
hierarchy  as  inappropriate  to  be  taught  in  our  pub¬ 
lic  schools. 


180  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

1.  Let  us,  then,  address  ourselves  to  the  argument 
that  is  brought  before  us,‘  and  which  is  highly  influen¬ 
tial  in  New  England,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  people 
are  violating  their  consciences  in  sending  their  chi  1- 
dren  to  our  schools,  and  that  because  we  believe  in 
liberty  of  conscience,  therefore  we  should  grant  them 
their  own  separate  schools,  and  help  to  support  them. 
Now,  first  of  all,  you  remember  that  liberty  of  con¬ 
science  is  an  utterly  unknown  quantity  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  From  early  times  and  for  centu¬ 
ries,  the  bulls  and  Encyclicals  of  the  Popes  have 
denounced  liberty  of  conscience.  To  give  you  an 
idea  of  the  correctness  of  this  statement,  I  call  your 
attention  to  the  following  paragraph,  which  I  read, 
for  the  sake  of  brevity  and  accuracy  :  “  When  in 

this  country  we  speak  of  liberty  of  conscience,  we 
mean  that  every  man  shall  be  permitted  to  worship 
God  as  his  own  personal  convictions  of  duty  shall 
dictate.  But  the  Papal  hierarchy  have  no  such 
meaning,  and  intend  nothing  of  the  sort.  With  them, 
liberty  of  conscience  merely  consists  in  the  right  to 
embrace,  profess,  and  practice  the  Catholic  religion 
in  a  Protestant  country  ;  and  not  the  right  to  embrace 
profess,  and  practice  the  Protestant  religion  in  a 
Roman  Catholic  country.  Protestantism  cannot  he 
tolerated  or  compromised  without  sin,  and  must  he 
exterminated.”  (u  The  Papacy  and  the  Civil 
Power,”  p.  35)  Now,  still  further  as  to  liberty  of 
conscience:  in  the  hull  of  Gregory  XVI.,  of  1832, 
which  is  endorsed  by  Pius  IX.,  we  have  denunciation 
and  anathema  upon  liberty  of  conscience  as  a  most 


Romanism  and  the  Republic .  187 

pestiferous  error,  from  which  spring  revolutions, 
corruptions,  contempt  of  sacred  things,  holy  institu¬ 
tions  and  laws,  and  in  one  word,  that  pest  of  all 
others  most  to  be  dreaded  in  the  State,  unbridled 
liberty  of  opinion.”  (“Papacy  and  Civil  Power,” 
p.  206.)  Here  you  have  manifest  proof  of  the  fact, 
that  the  liberty  of  conscience  which  is  urged  upon 
us,  as  a  reason  why  they  are  denouncing  and  would 
destroy  our  schools,  is  not  permitted  to  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics,  is  against  their  highest  law,  and  is  the  object 
of  Papal  anathema.  Whose  conscience  is  it,  then, 
that  is  being  violated  by  our  school  system?  Not 
the  conscience  of  the  Roman  Catholic  people,  of 
whom  the  most  intelligent  part,  I  believe,  are  devoted 
friends  of  our  free  schools,  and  are  verv  reluctant  to 
have  their  children  taken  out  of  them.  Not  the  con¬ 
science  of  intelligent  American  priests,  who  are  being 
forced  to  establish  these  parochial  schools  or  lose  their 
standing  in  the  Church.  The  only  conscience  that 
is  tolerated  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the 
only  conscience  that  can  make  a  demand  upon  us 
is  the  conscience  of  the  Pope  ;  and  I  am  prepared  to 
say,  that  if  there  is  a  conscience  under  heaven  that  I 
think  ought  to  be  repudiated,  both  by  morality  and 
piety,  it  is  the  conscience  of  the  Pope.  I  predi¬ 
cate  this  opinion  on  the  characters  of  Popes  that  the 
Romish  Church  has  had  for  centuries,  and  on  the 
quality  of  the  lives  that  they  have  lived,  on  the 
enactments  that  they  have  made,  and  on  the  excom¬ 
munications  that  they  have  issued.  Is  the  man  who 
could  swear  so  blasphemously  at  Victor  Emanuel  as 


188 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


did  Pope  Pius  IX.,  in  the  bull  of  excommunication, 
a  man  whose  conscience  should  dictate  to  America 
concerning  its  school  policy?  But  suppose  this  false 
plea  of  conscience  is  allowed,  what  will  it  next  object 
to?  We  have  Bibles  in  our  courts  and  in  our  Con¬ 
gress.  We  have  chaplains  also  in  our  army.  When  I 
visited  our  house  of  correction,  I  found  Bibles  there  in 
every  cell.  All  Bibles  and  their  free  use  are  against 
this  same  conscience.  How  soon  will  they  be  taken 
out  ?  It  must  be  also  against  the  conscience  of  the 
Pope,  that  there  should  rise  in  all  the  cities  of  Amer¬ 
ica  churches  that  are  not  Roman  Catholic,  and  do 
not  recognize  any  allegiance  to  him.  As  the  children 
of  Roman  Catholic  parents  behold  these  churches, 
they  are  are  likely  to  be  impressed,  as  they  are  by 
the  character  of  Protestant  Christians,  that  there 
are  good  Christians  in  the  world  beside  the  Pope, 
and  beside  the  Roman  Catholics.  But  if  our  com¬ 
mon  schools,  in  contradicting  that  idea,  come  to  be 
the  objects  of  Papal  hatred,  and  if  the  Papal  con¬ 
science  demands  the  destruction  of  the  mighty  fabric 
of  our  common  schools  because  it  is  likely  to  woo 
their  youth  away  from  the  Roman  hierarchy,  when 
will  their  conscience  demand  the  levelling  of  our 
churches,  because  our  church  edifices  are  likely  to 
surest  to  the  consciences  of  Roman  Catholic  chil- 
dren  that  their  religion  is  not  the  only  true  religion 
in  the  world?  And  if  we  grant  the  right  of  their 
conscience  to  destroy  our  public  schools,  which  are  a 
structure  vaster  and  grander  in  this  nation  than  any 
piles  of  brick  and  mortar,  what  answer  shall  we 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


189 


make  them,  when  the  Pope  of  Rome  demands  that 
all  Protestant  structures  be  levelled  to  the  ground  to 
satisfy  his  conscience  ?  Liberty  of  conscience  must 
have  its  limitations,  and  those  limitations  have 
already  been  reached.  This  Papal  conscience  is  the 
same  which  found  it  necessary  to  recognize  the 
Southern  Confederacy  when  this  nation  was  being 
riven  by  rebellion.  This  is  the  same  conscience 
that  called  Jefferson  Davis  the  beloved  son  of  the 
Church.  Evidently,  the  conscience  of  the  Pope  is 
not  a  good  guide  for  Americans. 

Now  when  you  remember  that  this  claim  to  a 
conscientious  right  to  overthrow  our  public  school 
system  is  not  the  claim  of  the  conscience  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  people,  but  is  only  the  drift  and 
purpose  of  the  hierarchy,  then  you  can  see,  that 
while  we  are  loyal  to  the  doctrine  of  liberty  of  con¬ 
science,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  we 
should  consent  to  the  destruction  of  our  schools. 

And  right  along  that  line  they  raise  another  sug¬ 
gestion,  namely,  that  of  fair  play  :  because,  they  say, 
they  are  taxed  for  the  support  of  public  schools,  and 
that  ought  not  to  be.  The  tax  is  called  unjust. 
Their  children  are  going  to  be  withdrawn  from  those 
schools,  they  say,  and  when  thus  withdrawn,  this 
unjust  tax  must  no  longer  be  levied  on  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics.  So,  as  M.  Capel  said,  as  quick  as  the  click  of 
a  trigger,  when  the  Pope  says  it,  they  will  all 
refuse  to  pay  the  tax.  Now,  such  refusal  is  not 
fair  play.  Do  not  all  these  people  enjoy  the  privi¬ 
leges  of  that  Constitutional  government  which  is 


190 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


supported  by  our  public  schools?  Does  not  the 
diffusion  of  general  intelligence  furnish  them  with 
better  surroundings  than  they  could  have  elsewhere? 
Is  not  this  country  made  a  more  desirable  place  to 
live  in  because  of  the  tax  expended  for  the  support 
of  public  schools?  If  they  are  not  deriving  as  great 
benefit  from  this  government  as  they  pay  for  in  their 
taxes,  let  them  emigrate  to  Spain  or  Mexico,  to 
Portugal  or  Belgium,  where  they  can  have  their  own 
way.  Spain  is  about  the  last  state  in  the  world  of 
any  consequence  where  they  can  have  their  own 
way.  Italy  and  Austria  and  France,  after  ages  of 
bondage,  are  having  their  wav  now,  and  are  renounc- 
ing  all  allegiance  to  the  Papacy.  But  I  say,  if  any 
Roman  Catholic  priest  or  bishop,  or  any  layman, 
feels  himself  defrauded  when  he  pays  his  taxes 
in  America,  let  him  go  and  pay  his  tax  in  Spain  or 
Mexico,  and  have  all  the  benefits  of  Papal  supremacy 
and  Papal  law.  But  even  when  people  send  no 
children  to  school  should  they  therefore  not  be  taxed 
for  the  support  of  schools  and  for  the  common  good  ? 
How  about  that  large  number  of  people  possessed  of 
great  property  in  the  community  who  have  no  chil¬ 
dren  and  pay  taxes  for  the  support  of  schools?  Is 
that  unjust?  Plow  about  many  millionaires  of  our 
country  whose  children  have  never  seen  a  day  in  our 
public  schools?  Shall  they,  because  they  are  not 
sending  their  children  to  the  public  schools,  deny  the 
right  of  the  State  to  tax  them  for  the  support  of 
public  education  ?  1  do  not  know  about  the  method 

of  distributing  school  monies  in  this  city,  but  in  some 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


191 


cities  the  taxes  are  paid  into  a  common  treasury. 
The  taxes  that  are  raised  in  a  locality  are  not  all 
spent  in  that  locality,  but  the  levies  that  are  raised 
in  one  section  of  the  state  may  be  spent  in  remote 
localities  for  the  support  of  schools  there,  because 
one  county  has  a  surplus  of  wealth,  while  another 
is  poor.  Do  you  suppose  that  every  man  who 
objects  to  any  part  of  the  policy  of  the  State  is  going 
to  have  exemption  from  taxation  for  the  support  of 
that  part  of  the  government’s  policy?  Suppose  I,  if 
I  were  a  single  man  and  not  owning  property,  should 
say,  I  can  take  care  of  myself  and  do  not  need  any 
police.  Being  alert  and  strong  and  tolerably  muscu¬ 
lar,  I  do  not  intend  to  be  taxed  for  the  support  of 
the  police-force  of  the  city,  because  it  does  me  no 
good.  How  about  that?  Now  you  can  apply  this 
principle  far  and  wide,  and  you  will  find  the  further 
you  reason  about  it  the  more  utterly  absurd  is  all 
this  talk  about  a  division  of  the  school-fund  when 
Roman  Catholics  withdraw  their  children  and  refuse 
to  use  the  public  schools.  I  tell  you,  my  friends, 
there  is  going  to  be  a  struggle  on  the  part  of  the 
best  of  the  Roman  Catholics  before  they  withdraw 
their  children  from  the  common  schools,  and  they 
ought  to  count  on  the  intelligent  support  of  every 
lover  of  his  country  when  they  make  their  stand 
against  the  terrors  and  threats  of  the  hierarchy. 
That  is  why  I  bring  you  this  argument,  so  that  you 
can  remember  it,  and  help  them. 

When  it  comes  to  the  argument  of  fair  play, 
we  retort  and  ask  :  Is  it  fair  play,  on  account  of 


192 


Itomanism  and  the  Republic. 


hostility  to  the  best  government  under  the  sun,  and 
to  the  freest  Constitution,  which  gives  you  the  largest 
liberty  and  the  greatest  privileges, — is  it  fair  play,  at 
the  mandate  of  a  foreigner,  who  is  no  friend  of  lib¬ 
erty,  and  whose  principal  care  for  you  is  to  fleece 
you, —  is  it  fair  play  for  Roman  Catholic  people  in 
America  to  lend  their  influence  to  destroy  the  sys¬ 
tem  which  has  given  them  such  large  benefits?  No, 
it  is  not.  And  when  we  come  to  the  question  of 
fair  play,  the  rights  of  fair  play  are  all  on  the  side  of 
the  defence  and  protection  of  our  schools.  Keep 
before  you,  then,  all  these  fallacies  thus  fully 
answered.  The  true  reason  was  given  by  the  Bishops, 
and  by  Archbishop  Gibbons,  now  Cardinal.  The 
real  antagonist  in  this  fight  against  our  public  schools 
is  the  political  machine  which  Father  McGlynn  has 
so  correctly  characterized  ;  it  is  the  machine  of  absolut¬ 
ism  in  Rome ;  not  love  of  liberty,  not  fair  play,  not 
conscience,  not  morality,  but  the  hierarchy  of  Rome. 
I  have  always  had  an  idea  that  the  breaking  of 
machines  of  that  sort  was  the  best  use  you  could  put 
them  to. 

2.  Romanism  not  only  cannot  be  reconciled  to 
the  Bible,  but  it  cannot  be  reconciled  to  history  :  for 
the  shocking  iniquity  of  the  Popes  is  perfectly  plain 
as  written  in  the  annals  of  the  world.  If  I  thought 
it  necessary,  I  should  repeat  quotations  that  I  have 
already  made,  to  show  that  Bibles  and  Bible  societies 
are  regarded  as  pestiferous  by  the  Pope.  But  the 
objection  that  the  people  should  not  read  the  Bible 
because  they  do  not  know  how  to  interpret  it,  is  not 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


193 


an  honest  objection.  If  the  people  do  not  know  how 
to  interpret  the  Bible,  and  therefore  ought  not  to 
read  it,  pray  tell  me  what  books  and  periodicals  are 
they  able  to  interpret,  and  what  shall  they  read? 
The  people  are  not  able  to  interpret,  perhaps,  the 
protective  tariff.  They  may  not  be  able  to  interpret 
fully  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  accord- 
ing  to  this  theory  of  Rome.  They  may  not  be  able 
to  interpret  natural  sciences.  They  may  not  be  able 
to  interpret  political  economy.  Who  is  going  to 
interpret  these  for  them?  The  Pope?  He  claims 
the  right.  In  the  matter  of  the  Bible,  they  say,  the 
hierarchy  shall  interpret.  But  the  truth  is,  this 
argument  against  the  Bible  in  the  hands  of  the 
people,  and  the  power  of  the  people  to  interpret  it, 
is  not  the  reason  why  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy 
have  tried  for  ages  to  hold  in  bondage  the  intelligence 

O  .O  O 

of  their  people.  It  is  rather  because,  with  an  open 
Bible,  their  manhood  rising  up,  protests  against 
being  kept  in  constant  infancy  and  pupilage,  and  they 
demand  the  right  to  think  for  themselves. 

Now  the  real  objection  to  the  Bible  is  :  You  cannot 
find  in  it  many  of  the  fundamental  dogmas  of  Roman¬ 
ism.  You  cannot  find  in  it  priestly  or  episcopal 
celibacy.  If  the  Roman  Catholic  people  should  read 
it,  they  would  all  see  that  their  priests  are  not  keep¬ 
ing  the  law  of  God  in  living  without  families,  recog¬ 
nized  families.  The  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Con¬ 
ception  is  not  in  the  Bible  :  nor  do  Roman  Catholic 
theologians  claim  that  it  is.  It  was  only  created  by 
Pius  IX.,  in  1854,  who  said,  not  long  before  he  made 


194 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


it,  that  he  did  not  know  whether  it  was  true  or  not. 
The  worship  of  Mary  is  not  in  the  Bible.  Purga¬ 
tory  is  not  in  the  Bible.  The  Mass  is  not  in  the 
Bible.  The  Assumption  of  the  Virgin  is  not  in  the 
Bible.  Indulgences  are  not  in  the  Bible,  nor  Papal 
infallibility,  nor  extreme  unction,  nor  the  Inquisition, 
nor  Den’s  Theology,  nor  a  good  deal  more  that  they 
depend  on.  That  is  the  real  reason  why  they  object 
to  the  Bible  ;  because  the  open  Bible,  in  the  hands  of 
the  people,  destroys  the  wicked  pretensions  of  the 
hierarchy,  and  emancipates  men  from  a  yoke  that 
neither  they  nor  their  fathers  have  ever  been  able  to 
bear  without  being  pressed  down  to  the  ground. 

But  I  am  coming  to  a  central  point  in  this  matter 
of  controversy.  The  attitude  that  they  take  against 
the  Bible  is  the  attitude  that  they  take  against  his¬ 
tory,  and  for  the  same  reason.  Because  history  can¬ 
not  be  tortured  into  a  justification  oj  the  ways  of  this 
infallible  Church ,  therefore  they  object  to  it.  Three 
hundred  years  ago,  all  Germany,  and  all  the  world, 
was  shaken  by  a  conflict  on  so-called  Indulgences. 
Is  it  not  a  remarkable  fact,  that  in  Boston,  in  this 
year  of  grace  1888,  the  conflict  between  Romanism 
and  the  public  schools  is  over  the  very  same  thing? 
As  Luther  rose  up  then  and  denounced  Indul¬ 
gences  and  their  sale,  so  it  seems  once  more,  after 
the  lapse  of  centuries,  we  have  got  to  rise  up  and 
protest  against  Indulgences  as  a  reason  why  a  book 
of  history  should  be  expelled  from  Boston  public 
schools,  and  why  a  master  of  those  schools  should  be 
removed  from  his  place.  I  propose  now  to  give  you 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


195 


some  insight  into  that  Boston  incident.  You  know 
that,  not  long  since,  Boston  was  convulsed  by  the 
action  of  the  school  board,  half  of  whom  were  Roman 
Catholics,  in  taking  out  of  the  schools  S  win  ton's 
book  on  history,  and  in  discharging  Mr.  Travis,  one 
of  the  public  school  teachers,  from  his  position, 
because  he  had  taught  concerning  indulgences  what 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  denied,  or  at  least  the 
Roman  Catholic  people  on  that  school  board. 

The  following  is  the  exact  language  of  Swinton’s 
History,  which  has  been  made  the  ground  of  its  pro¬ 
scription  in  Boston  Schools  : 

“  When  Leo  X.  came  to  the  Papal  chair,  he  found 
the  treasury  of  the  Church  exhausted  by  the  ambi¬ 
tious  projects  of  his  predecessors.  He  therefore  had 
recourse  to  every  means  Avhich  ingenuity  could 
devise  for  recruiting  his  exhausted  finances,  and 
among  these  he  adopted  an  extensive  sale  of  indul¬ 
gences,  which  in  former  ages  had  been  a  source  of 
large  profits  to  the  Church.”  (Here  is  a  star,  and  a 
foot  note  which  I  will  presently  give  you.) 

“The  Dominican  friars,  having  obtained  a  monopoly 
of  the  sale  in  Germany,  employed,  as  their  agent, 
Tetzel,  one  of  their  own  Order,  who  carried  on  the 
traffic  in  a  manner  that  was  very  offensive,  and 
especially  to  the  Augustinian  friars.” 

Now,  after  this  mild  statement,  read  the  foot-note, 
which  was  most  offensive  to  Romanists:  “These 
indulgences  were,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church, 
remissions  of  the  penances  imposed  upon  persons 
whose  sins  had  brought  scandal  on  the  community. 


196 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


But  in  process  of  time,  they  were  represented  as  act¬ 
ual  pardons  of  guilt,  and  the  purchaser  of  indul¬ 
gences  was  said  to  be  delivered  from  all  his  sins.” 

Now  I  will  demonstrate  to  you,  out  of  the  mouth 
of  popes  and  bishops  and  John  Tetzel  himself,  that 
S  win  ton’s  History  is  but  a  mild  statement  of  literal 
truth,  and  that  the  only  objection  that  can  justly  be 
brought  against  it  is,  that  he  states  so  kindly  facts 
which  are  a  disgrace  to  Rome. 

The  theory  of  indulgences  I  will  state  in  the  words 
of  Pope  Leo  X.,  in  order  that  you  may  know  exactly 
what  it  is,  from  Papal  authority.  Pope  Leo  X. 
explained  the  doctrine  of  indulgences  thus:  “The 
Roman  Church,  whom  other  churches  are  bound  to 

follow  as  their  mother,  hath  taught  that  the  Roman 

7 

Pontiff,  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  earth,  pos¬ 
sessing  the  power  of  the  keys,  by  which  power  all 
hindrances  are  removed  out  of  the  way  of  the  faith¬ 
ful,  that  is  to  say,  the  guilt  of  actual  sin,  by  the  sac¬ 
rament  of  penance,  and  the  temporal  punishment  due 
for  those  sins,  according  to  the  divine  justice  by 
ecclesiastical  indulgence,  that  the  Roman  Pontiff 
may,  for  reasonable  causes,  by  his  apostolic  author¬ 
ity,  grant  indulgences  out  of  the  superabundant 
merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints,  to  the  faithful  who 
are  united  to  Christ  by  charity,  as  well  for  the  liv¬ 
ing  as  for  the  dead  ;  and  that  in  thus  dispensing  the 
treasure  of  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  saints, 
he  either  confers  indulgences  by  the  method  of  abso¬ 
lution,  or  transfers  it  by  the  method  of  suffrage 
(that  is,  favor)  ;  wherefore  all  persons,  whether  liv- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


197 


ing  or  dead,  who  really  obtain  any  indulgence  of  this 
kind,  are  delivered  from  so  much  temporal  punishment 
due  according  to  divine  justice,  for  their  actual  sins, 
as  is  equivalent  to  the  value  of  indulgences  bestowed 
and  received.”  That  is  to  say,  indulgences  are  of 
various  classes,  and  the  classes  are  in  several  divi¬ 
sions  ;  and  these  indulgences  are  supposed,  by  the 
theory  of  the  Church,  to  remit  the  pains  of  purgatory, 
and  to  remit  also  the  penalties  of  guilt  in  this  life. 
(Dr.  Barnum’s  “  Romanism  As  It  Is,”  p.  530.)  Pro¬ 
fessor  L.  T.  Townsend,  of  the  Theological  School  of 
Boston,  one  of  the  cleanest  and  clearest  scholars  of 
New  England,  said,  that  after  examining  fifteen 
authorities  in  reference  to  a  definition  of  indulgen- 
ces,  he  found  that  there  was  nothing  in  Swinton  at 
variance  with  their  general  statement. 

What  are  the  actual  facts  about  Indulgences,  when 
you  come  to  the  practice  of  their  dispensation?  You 
will  find  in  D’Aubigne’s  “  History  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,”  vol.  I,  book  iii,  chapters  1-2,  what  Tetzel, 
who  was  the  great  agent  and  auctioneer  of  indul- 
gences  in  Luther’s  time,  said  about  his  wares ;  and 
because  I  want  you  to  know  what  Indulgences  really 
are,  I  will  give  you  some  of  Tetzel’s  own  words. 
“  Indulgences,”  said  Tetzel,  (who  had  a  voice  like  a 
lion  and  the  manners  of  a  mountebank,  whose  vices 
were  infamous,  and,  though  a  monk,  had  two  of  his 
children  with  him,) — indulgences  are  the  most  preci¬ 
ous  and  the  most  noble  of  God’s  gifts.  This  cross 
(pointing  to  the  Red  Cross)  has  as  much  efficacy 
as  the  very  cross  of  Jesus  Christ.  Come,  and  I  will 


198 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


give  you  letters,  all  properly  sealed,  by  which  even 
the  sins  that  you  intend  to  commit  may  be  pardoned.” 
These  are  his  own  words.  “  I  would  not  change  my 
privileges  for  those  of  Saint  Peter  in  Heaven  ;  for  1 
have  saved  more  souls  by  my  indulgences  than  the 
Apostle  by  his  sermons.”  (That  was  rather  bad 
for  Peter.)  “There  is  no  sin  so  great,  that  an 
indulgence  cannot  remit :  and  even  if  any  one  (which 
is  doubtless  impossible)  had  offered  violence  to  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary,  mother  of  God,  let  him  pay, 
only  let  him  pay  well,  and  all  will  be  forgiven  him.” 
(The  consummate  indecency  of  the  man  had  to  come 
out  even  in  the  sale  of  indulgences.)  “Reflect, 
then,  that  for  every  mortal  sin,  you  must,  after  con¬ 
fession  and  contrition,  do  penance  for  seven  years, 
either  in  this  life  or  in  purgatory.”  (I  judge  that 
Tetzel  is  in  purgatory  yet!)  “Now,  how  many 
mortal  sins  are  there  not  committed  in  a  day,  how 
many  in  a  week,  how  many  in  a  month,  how  many  in 
a  year,  how  many  in  a  whole  life  !  Alas  !  these  sins 
are  almost  infinite,  and  they  entail  an  infinite  pen¬ 
alty  in  the  fires  of  purgatory.  And  now,  by  means 
of  these  letters  of  indulgence,  you  can,  once  in  your 
life,  in  every  case  except  four,  which  are  reserved 
fpr  the  Apostolic  See,  and  afterward  in  the  article  of 
of  death,  obtain  a  plenary  remission  of  all  your 
penalties  and  all  your  sins.” 

That  is  not  a  Protestant  declaration. 

Those  are  the  exact  words  of  John  Tetzel,  the 
agent  of  the  Pope,  and  of  Albert,  Archbishop  of 
Mainz,  who  went  all  through  Germany  selling 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


199 


indulgences,  before  and  after  Martin  Luther  pro¬ 
nounced  the  ninety-live  theses  against  them.  He 
says  also  :  “The  very  moment  that  the  money  rattles 
at  the  bottom  of  the  chest,  the  soul  escapes  from 
purgatory  and  tiies  liberated  to  heaven.”  Further: 
we  give  one  of  these  letters  of  absolution.  I  am 
sure  you  will  be  interested.  It  is  worth  while  learn¬ 
ing  the  contents  of  these  diplomas  which  led  to  the 
reformation  of  the  Church  :  “  May  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  have  pity  on  thee,  N.  H.,  and  absolve  thee 
by  the  merits  of  His  most  holy  passion.  And  I,  in 
virtue  of  the  apostolic  power  that  has  been  confided 
to  me,  absolve  thee  from  all  apostolic  censures 
judgments,  and  penalties,  which  thou  mayest  have 
incurred  :  moreover  from  all  excesses,  sins  and  crimes 
that  thou  mayest  have  committed,  however  great 
and  enormous  they  may  be,  and  from  whatsoever 
cause,  were  they  even  reserved  for  our  Most  Holy 
Father  the  Pope  and  for  the  Apostolic  See.  I  blot 
out  all  the  stains  of  inability  and  all  the  marks  of 
infamy  that  thou  mayest  have  drawn  upon  thy 
self  on  this  occasion.  I  restore  thee  anew  to  partici¬ 
pation  of  the  sacraments  of  the  Church.  I  incorpor¬ 
ate  thee  afresh  in  the  communion  of  saints,  and 
re-establish  thee  in  the  purity  and  innocence  which 
thou  hadst  at  thy  baptism.  So  that  in  the  hour  of 
death,  the  gate  by  which  sinners  enter  the  place  of 
torments  and  punishments  shall  be  closed  against 
thee;  and,  on  the  contrary,  the  gate  leading  to  the 
paradise  of  joy  shall  be  open.  And  if  thou 
shouldst  not  die  for  long  years,  this  grace  will 


200 


Ronunvixm  and  the  Republic. 

remain  unalterable  until  thy  last  hour  shall  arrive.  In 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Amen.” 
The  foregoing  was  signed  by  John  Tetzel  “with 
his  own  hand.”  (D’Aubigne’s  “  History  of  the  Refor¬ 
mation,”  vol.  1,  p.  247.)  Now  if  that  had  been  in 
Swinton’s  text-book,  I  should  not  have  wondered  if 
the  Roman  Catholic  members  of  the  school-board 
had  been  greatly  exercised,  but  Swinton’s  statement 
was  not  like  that.  If  that  is  not  a  permission  to 
commit  sin,  with  a  guarantee  that  if  a  man  does  not 
die  for  long  years  to  come  the  indulgence  will  keep 
him  out  of  hell  and  open  to  him  heaven  —  if  that  is 
not  what  it  says,  then  I  cannot  understand  language. 

“  A  Saxon  nobleman,  who  had  heard  Tetzel  at 
Leipsic,  was  much  displeased  by  his  falsehoods. 
Approaching  the  monk,  he  asked  him  if  he  had 
the  power  of  pardoning  sins  that  men  have  an  inten¬ 
tion  of  committing.  4  Most  assuredly,’  replied  Tet¬ 
zel,  ‘  I  have  received  full  powers  from  His  Holiness 
for  that  purpose.’  4  Well,  then,’  answered  the 
knight,  ‘  I  am  desirous  of  taking  a  slight  revenge  on 
one  of  my  enemies,  without  endangering  his  life.  I 
will  give  you  ten  crowns  if  you  will  give  me  a  letter 
of  indulgence  that  shall  justify  me.’  Tetzel  made 
some  objections;  they  came,  however,  to  an  arrange¬ 
ment,  by  the  aid  of  thirty  crowns.  The  monk 
quitted  Leipsic  shortly  after.  The  nobleman  and  his 
attendants  lay  in  wait  for  him  in  a  wood  :  they  fell 
upon  him  and  gave  him  a  slight  beating,  and  took 
away  the  well-stored  indulgence-chest  the  Inquisitor 
was  carrying  with  him.  Tetzel  made  a  violent  outcry. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


201 


and  carried  his  complaint  before  the  courts.  But  the 
nobleman  showed  the  letter  which  Tetzel  had  signed 
himself,  and  which  exempted  him  from  eveiy  penalty. 
Duke  George,  whom  this  action  at  first  exceedingly 
exasperated,  no  sooner  read  the  document  than  he 
ordered  the  accused  to  be  acquitted.  Duke  George 
was  a  most  earnest  Roman  Catholic,  and  a  life-ion" 
enemy  of  the  Reformation.  Tetzel,  speaking  for  him¬ 
self,  makes  manifest  the  wickedness  and  folly  of  indul¬ 
gences,  to  gloze  over  which,  this  very  summer,  text¬ 
books  are  changed  and  teachers  persecuted  in  Bos¬ 
ton,  Massachusetts  !  Bishop  Challoner,  in  his  “  Cath¬ 
olic  Christian  Instructed,”  defined  an  indulgence  thus  : 
“  An  indulgence  is  simply  a  remission  or  mitigation 
of  those  temporal  punishments  which  the  sinner  still 
owes  to  the  Eternal  Justice,  even  after  the  forgiveness 
of  the  guilt  of  his  offence.”  Xow  we  have  here  a 
Brief  of  Indulgence  published  in  Sadlier’s  Catholic 
Directory  for  1870-71  :  “  Saint  Patrick’s  Day.  Most 
Hol}r  Father:  James  Frederick,  Bishop  of  Phila¬ 
delphia,  most  humbly  begs  that  your  Holiness  would 
deism  to  "rant  to  all  the  faithful  of  his  diocese  who, 
having  duly  confessed  and  worthily  approached  the 
holy  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  on  the  feast  of  Saint 
Patrick,  shall  visit  their  representative  churches,  a 
plenary  indulgence,  which  may  be  accounted  every 
year,  and  which  may  also  be  applied  in  favor,  aid  or 
assistance  of  the  souls  in  purgatory.”  The  Brief  is 
appended  thus  asked  for,  granting  the  request,  signed 
by  the  Pope’s  Secretary.  I  have  here  the  translation 
of  a  prayer  which  Romanists  state  was  found  in  the 


202 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


tomb  of  oul'  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  Jerusalem,  pre¬ 
served  by  His  Holiness  and  Charles  V.,  in  their  ora¬ 
tories,  in  silver  cases.  After  a  great  deal  of  blasphe¬ 
mous  nonsense  which  you  may  find  in  that  so-called 
prayer,  we  have  the  following:  “Whoever  daily 
recites  three  Paters  and  three  Aves,  is  granted  by 
Pius  IX.  one  hundred  years  of  indulgence,  corres¬ 
ponding  with  the  number  of  drops  of  blood  which  I 
shed.  And  if  he  lives  like  a  good  Christian,  he 
grants  him  five  graces,  namely  :  (1)  Plenary  indulg¬ 
ence  and  the  remission  of  all  his  sins.  (2)  He 
shall  be  freed  from  the  pains  of  purgatory.  (3)  If 
he  dies  before  reaching  the  age  of  twelve  years,  he 
shall  be  as  if  he  had  reached  that  age.  (4)  He  shall 
be  as  if  he  were  a  martyr,  and  had  shed  his  blood  for 
the  faith.  (5)  I  will  come  from  heaven  to  earth  for 
his  soul,  and  for  the  souls  of  his  relations  to  the  fourth 
generation.  He  who  carries  this  prayer  with  him 
shall  not  die  under  condemnation,  nor  a  bad  death, 
nor  by  sudden  death.  He  shall  be  safe  from  con¬ 
tagion,  from  plagues,  from  arrow-shots  :  shall  not 
die  without  confession :  he  shall  be  safe  from  his 
enemies,  from  the  power  of  justice,  and  from  all  mal¬ 
evolent  men  and  false  witnesses.  In  houses  where 
this  prayer  is  kept  there  shall  be  no  treachery  nor 
other  evil  things,  and  forty  days  before  death  the 
inhabitant  shall  see  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary.”  A 
part  is  omitted  as  unfit  for  print  or  speech.  (“Rom¬ 
anism  As  It  Is,”  p.  535). 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Hall,  late  chaplain  to  the  American 
legation  in  Rome,  says  :  “  On  a  marble  slab  in  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


203 


Church  of  St.  Lawrence  is  this  inscription  :  “  Who¬ 
soever  with  devout  and  contrite  heart  approaches 
this  cross,  and  the  other  (in  the  adjoining  cloister), 
shall  obtain  plenary  indulgence  of  all  his  sins.’’  In 
the  Church  of  St.  Agostino,  is  this  inscription; 
“Our  Lord,  Pius  VII.,  granted  in  perpetuity  one 
hundred  days  of  indulgence,  to  be  obtained  once  a 
day  by  all  those  who  devoutly  shall  kiss  the  foot  of 
this  holy  image  (a  statue  of  the  Virgin  and  Child), 
reciting  an  Ave  Maria  for  the  necessities  of  Holy 
Church.”  On  the  gate  of  St.  Paul  is  written  :  “  Kiss- 
ing  devoutly  the  most  holy  cross  in  any  place  gains 
one  year  and  forty  days  indulgence.”  In  the  church 
of  St.  Sebastian,  at  the  entrance  to  the  Catacombs,  on  a 
marble  slab,  is  this  inscription:  “  Whoever  contrite 
and  confessed  shall  have  entered  it  (the  Catacomb), 
shall  obtain  plenary  remission  of  all  his  sins,  through 
the  merits  of  the  174,000  “holy  martyrs”  buried 
there.  The  Homan  doctrine  of  Merit  teaches,  that  a 
martyr  in  dying  renders  more  to  God  than  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  expiation  of  all  his  sins.  The  same  is 
said  of  all  saints  and  monks.  (Bellarmine,  Indulg. 
1:  2,  5).  The  surplus  of  merit  of  these  martyrs 
and  monks  is  supposed  to  be  deposited  in  the  treas¬ 
ure  (or  box)  of  the  church,  of  which  the  Pope  only 
has  the  key,  enabling  him  to  grant  indulgences  with¬ 
out  limit,  and  authorizing  Bishops  and  priests  to  do 
the  same.  Pierre  du  Moulin,  (“  Roman  Traditions,” 
3(31)  says:  “These  indulgences  are  for  those  who 
will  pay  for  them.”  “  There  is  no  sin  so  great  that 
the  indulgence  cannot  remit  it,”  said  Tetzel. 


204 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


I  do  not  take  you  any  further  into  this  matter  of 
indulgences  ;  but  when  you  compare  what  is  in  the 
text-book  that  has  been  taken  out  of  the  Boston 
schools,  you  will  find  that  it  does  not  represent  one- 
fiftieth  part  of  the  enormity  of  the  promises,  the 
blasphemies,  the  follies  that  are  in  the  extracts  which 
I  have  read  you  from  prominent  and  authorized  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  Papal  Church,  from  the  Pope 
down.  And  is  Massachusetts  calmly  and  timidly 
submitting  to  have  a  text-book  taken  out  and  the 
teacher  decapitated  because  he  dared  to  tell  a  frac¬ 
tion  of  the  truth  ?  Shades  of  the  fathers  !  Would 
that  your  spirits  might  reanimate  your  sons  1  It  is 
not  the  utter  silliness  of  the  doctrine  to  which  I  call 
your  attention  ;  but  the  question  is  simply  this  :  Shall 
our  schools  teach  history ;  or  shall  they  teach  Roman¬ 
ism ?  That  question  is  going  to  be  decided  by  the 
American  public.  Now  Gladstone  says,  in  his  pam¬ 
phlet  “  Vaticanism”  (p.  129),  that  “  Rome  does  not 
keep  good  faith  with  history  as  it  is  handed  down  to 
her  and  marked  out  for  her  by  her  own  annals.”  You 
understand  that.  Let  me  read  it  a^ain.  This  man 

O 

who  weighs  every  word,  and  I  think  has  as  remark¬ 
able  power  of  exact  statement  as  any  man  speaking 
the  English  language,  says:  “Rome  does  not  keep 
faith  with  history  as  it  is  handed  down  to  her  and 
marked  out  for  her  by  her  own  annals.”  And  what 
is  the  reason?  The  reason  is, that  Romanism  cannot 
and  dare  not  face  her  own  history.  This  is  true  in 
every  essential  particular  relating  to  the  Church. 
For  instance  :  almost  every  doctrine  or  dogma  out- 


/ 


Romanism  and  the  Republic .  205 

side  of  immediate  Christian  biblical  doctrine,  almost 
every  dogma  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 
exploded  by  history;  as  for  example,  the  Papacy,  in¬ 
fallibility,  temporal  power,  purgatory.  All  these  are 
wholly  unsubstantial  in  the  light  of  history.  Take 
all  the  assumptions  of  the  Papacy  of  Rome,  which 
depend  on  the  allegation  that  Peter  was  the  first 
Bishop  of  Rome.  Now,  from  the  very  best  evidence 
that  I  can  get  on  both  sides,  Peter  was  never  in 
Rome,  and  that  has  been  the  opinion  of  many  of  the 
most  learned  theologians  and  historians.  In  a  debate 
in  Rome  some  years  ago,  after  free  Italy  took  pos¬ 
session  and  made  debate  possible,  all  the  weight  of 
argument  and  all  the  truth  of  history  was  on  the  side 
of  the  belief  that  Peter  was  never  in  Rome.  That 
the  office  of  Bishop  was  held  by  him  is  without  one 
bit  of  proof.  The  Bible  says  nothing  about  it,  nor 
does  tradition  for  a  hundred  years,  nor  do  the  fathers 
who  came  directly  after  the  apostles.  All  tradition 
points  the  other  way.  Take  another  Romish  dogma  : 
We  have  in  the  Papacy  the  figment  of  apostolic 
succession.  They  think  that  Peter  was  in  Rome  and 
was  the  first  Bishop,  and  handed  down  his  power  to 
his  successors ;  but  to  whom  they  do  not  know. 
Roman  Catholic  historians  cannot  agree,  for  their 
lives,  on  who  the  next  four  Popes  after  Peter  are. 
There  is  no  concord  of  opinion.  I  have  here  a  book, 
(Edgar’s  “Variations  of  Popery,”)  which  quotes  one 
hundred  and  seventy  and  more  of  the  leading 
writers,  historians  and  fathers  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  the  summation  of  their  teaching  is,  that 


20<)  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

they  do  not  know  who  the  iii\st  four  Popes  were,, 
after  Peter,  who  never  was  a  Pope  !  Where  is  your 
unbroken  apostolical  succession?  Nowhere.  There 
is  no  such  thing  in  history. 

And  now  further.  In  this  apostolic  succession 
there  are  many  Popes,  of  some  of  whom  it  is 
altogether  uncertain  whether  they  were  legally  Popes 
or  not.  There  are  at  least  four  periods  where  there 
Avere  two  Popes  at  once,  and  how  they  did  curse  each 
other  !  I  never  heard  or  read  such  cursing,  except 
as  between  Popes.  You  remember  what  a  gift  at 
that  Pius  IX.  had.  Well,  from  the  first, —  and  that  is 
one  reason  Avhy  Ave  know  Peter  Avas  never  a  Pope, — 
from  the  first,  these  Popes  have  used  the  most  diaboli¬ 
cal  language  toward  one  another  Avhen  there  happened 
to  be  two  of  them.  And  on  tAvo  separate  occasions 
there  were  three  Popes.  Noav  which  of  the  three 
was  Pope,  Avhen  all  claimed  to  be?  They  Avere  all 
cursing, —  if  that  is  any  mark  of  a  Pope. —  every  man 
of  them  anathematizing  and  denouncing  the  others. 
At  the  time  knoAvn  as  the  great  schism,  occurring 
from  and  after  1378,  there  Avas  a  period  of  seventy 
years  in  Avhich  there  was  a  Pope  at  Avignon  over  in 
France,  and  a  Pope  in  Rome,  and  they  surely  did  not 
hold  each  other  in  good  estimation.  There  Avere 
seventy  years  in  Avhich  the  air  was  blue  with  their 
mutual  anathemas,  and  the  apostolic  succession  Avas 
wholly  unsettled.  Noav,  you  remember  that  these 
Popes  Avere  all  infallible.  I  affirm  to  you  that,  by 
the  authority  of  Roman  Catholic  historians,  many  of 
these  Popes  Avere  guilty  of  the  most  infamous  crimes. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


207 


and  that  the  Councils  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
itself  have  characterized  many  of  the  Popes  in  lan¬ 
guage  so  dreadful  that  it  is  hardly  tit  to  be  read 
before  any  audience.  What  did  the  Council  of  Con¬ 
stance  say  concerning  John  XXIII.,  who  was  a  Pope 
of  Pome?  I  will  read  as  much  as  I  dare  to  you, 
“The  Council,  seeing  no  other  alternative,  resolved 
to  depose  John  for  immorality.  The  Sacred  Synod 
of  Constance,  in  the  twelfth  session,  convicted  TIis 
Holiness  of  schism,  heresy,  incorrigibleness,  simony, 
impiety,  immodesty,  unchastity,  fornication,  adul¬ 
tery,  incest,  rape,  piracy,  lying,  robbery,  murder, 
perjury  and  infidelity.”  This  was  John  XXIII.,  Pope 
of  Rome  ;  and  that  is  what  the  Council  of  Constance 
said  of  him,  the  very  same  Council  that  burned  John 
Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague.  Nor  was  he  an  excep¬ 
tion  either ;  for  what  do  they  say  concerning  another 
of  the  Popes  ?  Benedict  VIII. ,  the  Council  convicted 
of  “  schism,  heresy,  error,  pertinacity,  incorrigibility, 
and  perjury.”  At  the  same  time,  the  Popes  had  their 
opinion  of  the  Councils  too,  as  you  will  find ;  for  the 
Council  of  Basil  incurred  the  displeasure  of  Eugenius, 
who  was  Pope  at  that  time  ;  and  you  ought  to  know 
what  an  infallible  Pope  thought  of  an  infallible 

Council.  This  assembly  he  called  “blockheads, 

«/ 

fools,  mad-men,  barbarians,  wild  beasts,  malignants, 
wretches,  persecutors,  miscreants,  schismatics,  here¬ 
tics,  vagabonds,  renegades,  apostates,  rebels,  mon¬ 
sters,  criminals,  a  conspiracy,  an  innovation,  a 
deformity,  a  conventicle,  distinguished  only  for  its 
temerity,  sacrilege,  audacity,  machinations,  impiety, 


208 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


tyranny,  ignorance,  irregularity,  fury,  madness  and 
the  dissemination  of  falsehood,  error,  scandal,  poison, 
pestilence,  desolation,  unrighteousness  and  iniquity.*’ 
That  is  what  he  said.  If  the  Pope  told  the  truth, 
the  Council  was  indeed  a  fearful  set  of  villains  ;  if  he 
told  a  lie,  he  was  a  fearful  villain  himself.  Eugenius 
proceeded  then  to  expel  a  pernicious  pestilence  and 
a  gross  impiety  from  the  Church,  by  disabling  all  the 
members  of  this  Council,  the  Doctors,  Archbishops, 
Bishops  and  Cardinals,  of  all  honor,  office,  benefit, 
and  dignity  :  in  excommunicating  and  anathematizing 
the  whole  assembly,  with  their  patrons  and  adherents 
of  every  rank  and  condition,  civil  and  ecclesiastical ; 
and  consigned  “  that  gang  of  all  the  devils  in  the  uni- 

O  O  O 

verse,  by  wholesale,  to  receive  their  portion  in  con¬ 
dign  punishment  and  in  eternal  judgment,  withKorali, 
Dathan  and  Abiram.”  The  pontifical  and  synodical 
denunciation  extended  to  the  Basilian  magistracy,  as 
well  as  sheriffs,  governors,  officials  and  citizens. 
These,  if  they  failed  in  thirty  days  to  expel  the  Coun¬ 
cil  from  the  city,  Eugenius  subjected  to  interdict  and 
confiscation  of  goods.  Their  forfeited  property  might, 
by  pontifical  authority,  be  seized  by  the  faithful,  or  by 
any  person  who  could  take  possession,  This  edify¬ 
ing-sentence  is  infallibly  pronounced  in  the  plenitude 
of  apostolic  power,  and  subjected  all  those  who  should 
permit  any  infringement  oil  his  declaration,  constitu¬ 
tion,  condemnation  and  reprobation,  to  the  indigna¬ 
tion  of  Almighty  God  and  the  blessed  apostles  Peter 
and  Paul.  This  was  the  act  of  the  general,  apos¬ 
tolic,  holy  Florentine  Council,  and  was  issued  with  due 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


209 


solemnity  in  a  public  synodical  session.  (  Romish 
Historians,  quoted  by  Edgar,  pp.  96-7.)  Now  after 
that,  another  Pope  —  Pope  Nicholas  —  cursed  the 
Council,  and  having  cursed  to  his  satisfaction,  he  took 
it  all  back  ;  Nicholas,  in  the  plenitude  of  apostolic 
power,  and  in  a  bull  which  he  addressed  to  all  the 
faithful,  rescinded,  in  due  form,  all  the  suspensions, 
interdicts,  privations  and  anathemas  which  had  been 
issued  against  Felix  and  the  Council  of  Basil  ;  while 
at  the  same  time  he  “  approved  and  confirmed  all 
their  ordinations,  promotions,  elections,  provisions, 
collations,  confirmations,  consecrations,  absolutions 
and  dispensations.”  He  denied  all  that  was  sa'id  or 
written  against  Felix  and  the  Basilian  Convention. 
Now  when  one  infallible  Pope  exhausts  language  to 
denounce,  and  gets  as  good  as  he  sends  from  an 
infallible  Council ;  and  when  another  infallible  Pope 
takes  it  all  back,  and  calls  the  Council  a  lot  of  good 
men  ;  I  want  to  ask  you  where  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope  comes  in  ? 

Can  Romanism  appeal  to  history  for  sanction  of 
Papal  Infallibility?  Shall  I  have  time  to  tell  you  of 
the  monsters  of  iniquity  that  some  of  these  Popes 
were?  “  But  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchs  of  the 
middle  and  succeeding  ages  exhibited  a  melancholy 
change.  Their  lives  displayed  all  the  variations 
of  impiety,  malevolence,  inhumanity,  ambition, 
debauchery,  gluttony,  sensuality,  deism  and  atheism. 
Gregory  the  Great  seems  to  have  led  the  way  in  the 
career  of  villany.  This  well-known  pontiff  has  been 
characterized  as  worse  than  his  predecessors,  and 


210 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


better  than  his  successors  ;  or,  in  other  terms,  as  the 
last  good  and  the  first  bad  Pope.  The  Hood-gates  of 
moral  dissolution  appeared,  in  the  tenth  century, 
to  have  been  set  wide  open,  and  inundations  of  all 
impurity  poured  on  the  Christian  world  through  the 
channel  of  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchs. 

Awful  and  melancholy  indeed  is  the  picture  of  the 
Popedom  at  this  era,  drawn  as  it  has  been  by  its 
warmest  friends.  Platina,  Petavius,  Luitprand, 
Genebrard,  Baronius,  Hermann,  Barclay,  Binius, 
Giannone,  Vignier,  Labbe,  and  Du  Pin.  (Edgar’s 
“  Variations  of  Popery,”  pp.  108-9). 

“Fifty  Popes,”  says  Genebrard,  “  in  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years,  from  John  VIII.  to  Leo  IX.,  entirely 
degenerated  from  the  sanctity  of  their  ancestors,  and 
were  apostatical,  rather  than  apostolical.  Forty  pon¬ 
tiffs  reigned  in  the  tenth  century.  The  successor, 
in  each  instance,  seems  demoralized  even  beyond  his 
predecessor.”  Baronius,  a  famous  Roman  Catholic 
historian,  in  his  annals  of  the  tenth  century,  seems 
to  labor  for  language  to  express  the  degeneracy  of 
the  Popes,  and  the  fearful  deformity  of  the  Popedom. 
“Many  shocking  monsters,”  he  says,  “intruded 
into  the  pontifical  chair,  who  were  guilty  of  murder, 
assassination,  simony,  dissipation,  tyranny,  sacrilege, 
perjury,  and  all  kinds  of  miscreancy.”  “The 
Church,”  says  Giannone,  “  was  then  in  a  shocking 
disorder,  in  a  state  of  iniquity.”  The  greatest  of  the 
Popes  was  Gregory  VII.,  known  as  Hildebrand. 
Now  concerning  Gregory  VIL  we  have  an  opinion, 
and  we  have  a  declaration  from  Roman  Catholics  of 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


211 


the  highest  standing  in  those  times,  that  he  was 

O  O 

elected  through  force  and  bribery  and  without  the  con¬ 
currence  of  the  emperor  or  clergy.  He  obtained  his 
supremacy,  in  the  general  opinion,  by  gross  simony  ; 
but  he  had  the  hardihood  to  pretend  that  his  dignity 

was  intruded  on  him  against  his  will.  The  Councils 

_ 

of  Worms  and  Brescia  depicted  his  character  with 
great  precision.  The  Council  of  Worms,  compre¬ 
hending  forty-six  of  the  German  prelacy,  met  in 
1076,  and  preferred  numerous  imputations  against 
Gregory.  This  Synod  found  His  Holiness  guilty 
of  usurpation,  simony,  apostasy,  treason,  schism, 
heresy,  chicanery,  dissimulation,  fornication,  adultery 
and  perjury.  His  Holiness,  in  the  sentence  of  the 
German  prelacy,  preferred  harlots  to  women  of  char¬ 
acter,  and  adultery  and  incest  to  just  and  holy  matri¬ 
mony.  The  Council  of  Brescia,  which  was  composed 
of  thirty  bishops,  and  many  princes  from  Italy, 
France  and  Germany,  called  Gregory  a  forni¬ 
cator,  an  impostor,  an  assassin,  a  violator  of  the 
canons,  a  disseminator  of  discord,  a  disturber. 
He  had  sown  scandal  among  friends,  dissensions 
among  the  peaceful,  and  separation  among  the  mar¬ 
ried.  The  Brescian  fathers  then  declared  His  Holi¬ 
ness  guilty  of  bribery,  usurpation,  simony,  sacrilege, 
vain-glory,  ambition,  obstinacy,  perverseness,  sor¬ 
cery,  divination,  necromancy,  schism,  heresy,  infidel¬ 
ity,  assassination  and  purjury.”  These  are  the  words 
of  Councils  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  concerning 
the  character  of  the  greatest  Pope  —  unless  Innocent 
III.  disputes  that  eminence  with  him — that  ever  sat  in 


212 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


the  Papal  chair  in  Rome.  Boniface  III.  was  as  bad,  or 
worse.  Sixtus  IV.,  in  1471,  just  before  the  discov¬ 
ery  of  America,  is  characterized  in  terms  as  hor¬ 
rible.  Of  one  of  the  Popes  it  is  said,  he  was  con¬ 
victed  of  forty  crimes.  The  Fathers  of  Trent  found 
him  guilty  of — I  will  not  read  the  list.  You  are 
getting  quite  familiar  with  it ;  and  there  are  some 
parts  of  it  that  you  never  will  get  familiar  with 
from  my  reading. 

Alexander  VI.,  Pope  of  Rome,  was  a  Borgia,  and 
the  very  name  is  associated  with  the  wickedness  of 
wickedness.  If  ever  there  was  a  monster  on  earth 
who  was  guilty  of  every  imaginable  crime  that  could 
belong  to  a  person  that  had  disgraced  human  nature 
by  the  vilest  uses,  Alexander  VI.  was  one  of  those 
men. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  will  give  you  a  morsel  that  is 
more  remarkable  than  anything  yet  said.  I  hold  in 
my  hand  a  modern  History,  which  I  suppose  the 
Romish  Church  intends  to  put  in  the  place  of  Svvin- 
ton’s.  This  modern  History  is  written 
Fredet,D.  D.,  and  was  published  by  J.  Murphy  A 
Co.,  of  New  York,  in  the  year  1 8 8 (> .  On  the  511th 
page  of  this  History,  I  find  the  following  declara¬ 
tion  about  these  Popes:  6 6  It  is  true,  a  few  among 
them  gave  great  scandal  to  the  Christian  world  in 
their  private  character  and  conduct ;  but  it  ought  to 
be  remembered  at  the  same  time ,  that ,  through  a  spec¬ 
ial  protection  of  Divine  Providence,  the  irregularity 
of  their  lives  did  not  interfere  with  their  public  duty , 
from  which  they  never  departed.  The  beneficial 


by  Peter 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


213 


% 


influence  of  sacred  jurisdiction  does  not  depend  on  the 
private  virtue  of  the  persons  invested  with  it;  but 
on  their  divine  mission  and  appointment  to  feed  the 
Christian  flock.  Nor  did  Christ  promise  personal 
sanctity  to  its  chief  pastors;  but  gave  to  them  author¬ 
ity  to  teach  and  govern  the  faithful.”  That  is  Homan 
Catholic  history.  Monstrous !  Monstrous !  !  The 
Popes  who,  by  Homan  Catholic  authority,  are  char¬ 
acterized  in  terms  that  carry  with  them  the  utmost 
condemnation,  are  declared  by  a  Roman  Catholic 
historian,  in  1836,  to  be  so  correct  in  their  adminis¬ 
tration  that  it  makes  no  difference  how  they  live  ! 
They  are  equally  infallible,  whatever  their  vices  and 
crimes  !  I  am  reminded  of  what  was  said  once  by  a 
man  who  was  told,  in  the  case  of  a  Bishop  of  scanda¬ 
lous  character,  that  the  Bishop  did  not  sin  ;  it  was 
the  man  that  sinned.  The  Bishop  was  sinless,  though 
the  man  was  wicked.  He  simply  asked  :  “  Pray 
tell  me,  what  will  become  of  the  Bishop  when  the 
devil  gets  the  man  ?” 

Let  me  ask  you,  now,  what  history  will  give  us  in 
defense  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  through  which 
Rome  wrings,  from  superstition,  countless  millions 
of  money.  1  have  here  a  letter  from  the  late  Chap¬ 
lain  of  the  American  legation  in  Rome,  who  has 
given  close  attention  to  the  study,  and  who  writes 
also  in  regard  to  indulgences.  After  stating  that 
“the  Pope  can  give  a  living  man  indulgence  of  his 
sins;”  we  have  the  following  citations,  which  are  of 
very  great  interest:  “The  doctrine  of  purgatory 
was  declared  to  be  an  article  of  faith  in  the  Roman 


214 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


* 


Church,  by  the  Council  of  Florence,  only  in  the 
year  1439.’'  (That  is,  up  to  that  time,  for  1450 
years  nearly,  either  purgatory  was  undiscovered,  or 
the  souls  of  Catholics  and  everybody  else  went  to  it, 
and  nobody  knew  it!  And  are  they  there  yet?) 
“  In  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  century,  Pope 
Alexander  YI.  was  the  first  to  declare  that  indul¬ 
gences  delivered  souls  from,  purgatory.”  (In  the 
latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  century ,  you  see  !)  Car¬ 
dinal  Cajetan,  before  whom  Luther  was  summoned, 
said  in  a  tract  on  indulgences  :  “  We  have  no  certain 
knowledge  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  indulgences  ;  and 
we  possess  in  writing  no  authority  on  this  subject, 
nor  in  Holy  Scripture,  nor  in  the  writings  of  the 
ancient  fathers,  nor  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  doctors.” 
Cardinal  Fisher,  in  confuting  Luther,  said  :  “  As  to 
indulgences,  it  is  uncertain  by  whom  they  were  insti¬ 
tuted  ;  and  as  to  purgatory,  no  mention  is  made  of 
it  by  the  ancients  ;  so  that  belief  in  indulgences  and 
in  purgatory  has  not  been  necessary  to  the  primitive 
Church.”  Take  away  purgatory,  and  no  one  will 
need  indulgences,  or  seek  them.  Purgatory  and 
indulgences  are  all  a  modern  invention  ;  and  when 
you  come  to  study  and  read  history,  you  will  find 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  dogmatic  system  cannot 
stand  in  the  face  of  history  for  a  day  or  an  hour. 

And  what  of  Mariolatry  and  other  similar  blasphe¬ 
mies?  I  declare  to  you  that  now,  when  it  is  time  to 
close,  I  am  not  half  through  this  line  of  thought,  and  I 
am  not  going  to  try  to  finish  it  to-night.  Such  is  the 
abundance  of  evidence  proving  that  the  pretensions 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


215 


of  Romanism  are  inconsistent  with  all  truth,  and 
with  all  open  study  of  what  is  necessary  for  men  to 
know,  that  our  contempt  for  the  false  claims  of  this 
infallibility  increases  with  proof,  until  it  piles  up 
an  indictment  which  disannuls  forever  the  claims  of 
Rome,  and  which  seems  to  say  to  every  citizen  of 
this  Republic  :  Against  Roman  usurpation,  based  on 
falsehood  in  the  name  of  truth,  yield  not  for  one 
hour,  not  for  one  moment ! 

I  have  not  told  you  how  she  changes  history.  It 
it  is  only  a  question  of  time  with  me  that  I  should. 
But  I  have  to  add  one  thing1  that  is  more  startling 
than  anything  that  1  have  hitherto  said :  By  the 
dogmas  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  laid  down 
by  Cardinal  Manning,  the  Pope  is  the  judge  of  ivhat 
history  is ;  and  if  he  says  that  a  thing  did  not  exist, 
notwithstanding  the  world  knows  it  did,  — if  he  says 
that  certain  facts  are  not  historical,  the  Church  is 
bound  to  believe  him  ! 

“  History  is  a  wilderness  into  which  infallibility 
will  allow  no  one  to  wander  without  guilt  of  his  own 
appointment,  and  it  denies  to  every  man  the  right  to 
exercise  his  own  reason  or  common  sense  in  separat¬ 
ing  the  true  from  the  false.”  (“  Papacy  and  the 
Civil  Power.”) 

“  If  any  one  say,”  says  Cardinal  Manning,  (“  The 
Vatican  Council  and  its  Definitions,”  page  121,)  — 
“If  any  one  say  that  there  is  no  judgment  but 
right  reason,  or  common  sense,  he  is  only  reproduc¬ 
ing  in  history  what  Luther  applied  to  the  Bible. 
Again,  in  Catholics  such  a  theory  is  simply  heresy.” 


21  (I 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


Why?  He  answers  thus:  “The  only  source  of 
revealed  truth  is  God :  the  only  channel  of  that 

revelation  is  the  Church.  No'  human  historv  can 

«/  • 

declare  what  is  contained  in  that  revelation.  The 
Church  (the  Pope)  alone  can  determine  its  limits, 
and  therefore  its  contents.  And  when  the  Pope, 
acting  for  the  Church,  does  determine  what  are  its 
limits  and  contents ,  no  difficulties  of  human  history 
can  prevail  against  it.  The  Church  is  its  own  evi¬ 
dence,  anterior  to  its  history ,  and  independent  of  it. 
Its  history  is  to  be  learned  of  itself  I  It  is  under  his 
dictation  that  they  are  telling  Boston  schools  what 
shall  be  taught  as  history.  And  they  are  coming  to 
Worcester  to  tell  you  ;  and  what  are  you  going  to 
say  to  them?  lean  imagine.  I  have  faith  for  the 
future.  I  had  laid  out  here,  in  my  discourse,  to  read 
to  you  from  Fredet’s  History,  of  1886,  a  precious  lot 
of  things  that  are  as  far  from  the  truth  as  the  poles 
are  apart.  I  had  intended  to  tell  you  how  intoler¬ 
ant  they  are  of  nearly  all  our  books  ;  to  bring  before 
you  an  incident  not  yet  four  weeks  old,  where  the 
Papal  power,  after  having  sanctioned  a  book  and 
said  that  the  faithful  might  read  it,  has  now  resolved 
that  the  book  ought  not  to  be  read,  and  put  its  lead¬ 
ing  proposition  on  the  Index  Expur  gator  ins.  I  had 
intended  to  tell  you  of  the  Index  Expurgatorius ,  and 
in  what  attitude  the  Papal  Church  stands  toward  all 
literature  and  science.  But  I  have  only  time  at  this 
moment  to  draw  to  an  abrupt  close,  deferring  these 
revelations  to  another  day.  I  want  you  to  know 
them  all.  I  cannot  bear  that  you  shall  go  into  this 


217 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

conflict  half  equipped.  I  do  not  want  the  insolent 
and  arrogant  priests  of  Rome  to  tell  you,  either  in 
their  papers  or  in  their  churches,  a  mass  of  lies,  that 
are  lies  in  the  face  of  their  own  history,  and  have  you 
believe  them.  I  am  simply  giving  you  ammunition. 
I  am  only  bringing  before  you  a  variety  of  facts  of 
the  utmost  importance  for  you  to  know  before  you 
advance  to  the  attack.  Let  us  put  on  the  shield  of 
truth,  against  which  every  Romish  pretence  is  shiv¬ 
ered  ;  as  are  shivered  the  javelins  of  hate  on  the 
bucklers  of  Almighty  God.  We  know  what  correct 
history  is.  Did  our  ancestors  persecute  the  Quak¬ 
ers?  We  know  it,  and  are  ashamed  of  it.  Did  they 
hang  the  witches?  We  admit  it,  and  say,  It  never 
shall  be  so  again  !  No  matter  what  the  imputation, 
if  it  be  truth,  admit  it.  An  honest  man,  or  Church,  or 
State,  has  no  reason  to  deny  a  frank,  fair  declaration 
of  fact.  But  if  we  professed  to  be  an  infallible 
Church,  and  were  resolved  that  all  was  perfect,  and 
had  always  been,  and  had  resolved  to  stand  up  for 
everything  we  and  our  ancestors  had  done,  we  would 
be  compelled,  either  to  deny  the  truth,  or  else  to 
bend  it  in  justification  of  the  enormities  of  former 
days. 

That  giant  among  men  of  thought,  Victor  Hugo, 
said,  in  a  marvellous  paper,  which  I  shall  read  in  your 
hearing  yet  one  day,  that  after  all  the  mischief  they 
had  done  elsewhere,  Rome  was  nowassailing  France. 
“  But,”  he  said,  with  that  singular  felicity  of  expres¬ 
sion  which  characterizes  his  writings,  “  France  is  a 

O  7 

lion,  and  is  alive.”  And  here — in  the  presence  of 


218 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


these  confessed  and  hostile  designs  with  which 
Romanists  assail  our  national  policy  and  free  institu¬ 
tions,  counting  on  our  acquiescence  and  the  effects 
of  hidden  treachery  —  I  take  up  the  words  of  that 
herald  of  freedom  in  France,  and  say,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  hierarchy  wherever  they  are,  whether  in  Wor¬ 
cester  or  in  Rome  :  “  Beware  !  America  is  a  lion, 

AND  IS  ALIVE  !  ” 


Sermon  FEEE- 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  ROMANISM  TO  DESTROY  OUR 

PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


“  I  speak  as  to  wise  men  ;  judge  ye  what  I  say 
these  have  been  the  words  of  my  text  for  two  con¬ 
secutive  Sunday  evenings,  and  because  the  three  ser¬ 
mons  on  our  public  schools  are  practically  one,  these 
are  the  words  of  my  text  to-night.  You  find  them  in 
1  Corinthians,  10  :  15.  I  have  no  time  for  intro¬ 
ductory  remarks,  save  for  a  word  in  review.  I  great¬ 
ly  desire  that  as  wise  men  you  shall  keep  distinctly 
in  mind  exactly  what  I  propose  to  show.  I  have 
shown  you  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is.  hostile 
to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  to  our 
public  schools,  which  arc  an  adjunct  and  a  necessity 
to  that  Constitution.  1  have  shown  you  that  its  hos¬ 
tility  to  the  common  schools  has  been  exhibited  by 
disparaging  them,  by  threats  against  them,  by  the 
expressed  determination  to  ruin  them  if  possible,  by 
demands  for  a  division  of  the  school  fund,  by  protests 
alleged,  though  falsely,  to  be  founded  on  conscience 
and  on  fair  play,  by  opposition  to  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  also  by  opposition  to  correct  history.  When  we 
closed  our  review  on  last  Sunday  night,  I  was  show¬ 
ing  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  its  fear  that 
public  education  would  work  its  destruction,  and  in 


220 


-Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


its  determination  to  destroy  the  common  schools,  not 
only  objects  to  the  Bible  and  to  history,  but  that  it 
carries  its  objections  against  almost  everything  that 
we  call  truth. 

Turning  to  this  book,  “Judges  of  the  Faith  ”  (which 
I  described  to  you  before,  the  Roman  Catholic  book 
which  is  endorsed  by  hundreds  of  prelates  from  the 
Pope  down  ),  I  call  your  attention  next  to  the  fact, 
that  on  the  11th,  21st  and  24th  pages,  not  only  the 
Bible  and  History  are  declaimed  against,  but  also  the 
Readers  that  are  used  in  our  public  schools,  and  all 
our  school  literature,  in  general.  Here  are  objections 
offered  not  only  to  Swinton,  but  to  Wilson,  Hume  and 
Hallam,  to  Peter  Parley,  and  many  other  historians  ; 
and  the  most  contemptuous  characterizations  are 
given  to  a  great  variety  of  other  school  literature.  -On 
the  24th  page,  they  speak  very  contemptuously  of  a 
History  which  contains  the  following  allusions,  as  they 
quote  :  “  Indulgences  sold  for  profit”  (we  fortunately 
know  something  about  that);  “actual  pardons  of 
guilt the  Murder  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  justified, 
and  herself  vilified  (see  Froude’s  late  researches)  ; 
the  Thirty  Years’  War  put  upon  Ferdinand  II.,  en¬ 
deavoring  to  extinguish  Protestantism  ;  Philip  II. ’s 
schemes  “principally  actuated  by  bigotry  “the  glori¬ 
fication  of  Garibaldi,  the  famous  Italian  patriot.” 
All  these  phrases  are  held  up  as  though  erroneous 
and  wicked.  And  yet 

What  does  Italy  think  of  Garibaldi,  whom  they  re¬ 
fuse  to  acknowledge  as  an  Italian  patriot?  I  will  tell 
you.  If  you  visit  the  Hall  of  Representatives  in  Rome, 


they  are  true  ! 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


22 1 


where  gather  the  men  who  now  legislate  for  free 
Italy,  you  will  find  that  one  seat  is  taken  away,  and 
in  the  place  where  that  seat  formerly  was  is  a  silver 
plate,  on  which  we  read  that  Garibaldi  once  sat  there, 
and  because  they  think  no  man  is  worthy  to  be  his 
successor,  they  have  removed  his  chair.  While 
Romanism  hounds  Garibaldi,  Italy  reveres  him  as  a 
patriot. 

The  objections  of  Romanists  to  our  school  books 
are  so  general,  that  in  Cincinnati,  in  the  year  1869, 
Archbishop  Purcell,  (who  gained  great  notoriety 
in  this  country  by  stealing  a  million  or  two  of  dol¬ 
lars  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church — if,  indeed,  it 
could  be  called  stealing,  for  the  Bishop  has  a  right 
to  all  he  can  get  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and 
holds  in  his  own  name  all  the  church  property  of  the 
diocese) — Archbishop  Purcell  objected  to  the  books 
of  general  reading  and  reference  in  the  libraries  of 
the  schools  in  Cincinnati ;  and  the  school  committee, 
disposed  to  make  peace,  permitted  him  to  take  a 
catalogue  of  the  library  books  and  indicate  what 
works  should  be  removed  from  those  libraries.  That 
was  witnessed  in  1869,  in  Ohio.  Will  it  be  a  happy 
day  for  America,  for  literature  and  for  general  intelli¬ 
gence, when  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  takes  out  of 
all  our  school  libraries  the  books  that  it  objects  to? 
We  wonder  what  will  be  left.  They  claim  and 
expect  the  censorship  of  all  literature,  and  all  utter¬ 
ances  of  the  press,  platform  and  pulpit,  as  I  read  to 
you  from  the  Catholic  World  last  Sunday  night. 

Now  the  censorship  of  Rome  over  all  this  litera- 


222  4 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


ture,  not  only  biblical  and  historic,  but  scientific 
also,  is  a  part  of  the  machinery  of  that  church. 
They  have  in  Romanism,  exercising  authority 
throughout  the  world,  what  is  called  The  Sacred  Con- 
gregation  of  the  Index,  over  which  a  Cardinal,  and 
sometimes  a  Pope  presides,  and  which  meets  every 
Monday  in  Rome.  It  is  the  duty  of  this  committee 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  determine  what 
books  shall  be  permitted  to  be  published,  read  and 
studied  throughout  the  Roman  Catholic  world,  and 
what  shall  be  forbidden.  When  a  book  is  objection¬ 
able  to  them,  they  refuse  to  have  it  printed  and  cir¬ 
culated  ;  when  a  book  is  favorable  to  Romanism,  they 
consent  to  its  circulation.  So  fierce  is  the  antagonism 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  books  that  are 
obnoxious  to  them,  that,  long  centuries  ago,  an  edict 
of  excommunication  was  issued  against  all  persons 
who  either  printed,  or  possessed,  or  read  heretical 
books.  I  will  read  you  from  that  bull.  The 
earliest  one  published  is  that  by  Gregory  XII.  in 
1411,  which  was  renewed,  with  additions,  by  Pius  V. 
Ilis  bull  was  renewed  under  the  same  name  by 
Urbane  VIII.  in  1627,  and  finally  as  a  bull  of  excom¬ 
munication  by  Pius  IX.,  on  the  twelfth  of  October, 
1859.  The  first  article  of  this  bull  is  as  follows  : 
“  We  excommunicate  and  anathematize,  in  the  name 
of  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  blessed  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and 
by  our  own,  all  Wickliffites,  Hussites,  Lutherans, 
Calvinists,  Huguenots,  Anabaptists,  and  all  other 
heretics,  by  whatsoever  name  they  are  called,  and  of 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


223 


whatsoever  sect  they  be ;  and  also,  all  schismatics, 
and  those  who  withdraw  themselves,  or  recede 
obstinately  from  the  obedience  of  the  Bishop  of 
Borne  ;  as  also  their  adherents,  receivers,  favorers, 
and  generally  any  defenders  of  them ;  together  with 
all  who ,  without  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See , 
shall ,  knowingly ,  read ,  keep  or  print  any  of  their 
books  which  treat  on  religion ,  or  for  any  cause  what¬ 
ever,  publicly  or  privately,  on  any  pretence  or  color, 
defend  them.”  That  is  to  say,  we  have  a  bull 
endorsed  by  at  least  five  Popes,  of  excommunication 
against  those  who  shall  dare  to  publish,  circulate, 
read  or  possess  books  that  are  forbidden  by  the 
Sacred  Inquisitorial  Congregation  of  Rome. 

And  what  is  the  penalty  pronounced  by  the  con¬ 
gregation  and  church  against  those  who  have  violated 
this  bull  of  the  Pope  ?  You  will  find,  when  you  come  to 
study  the  history,  that  very  heavy  fines  and  penalties 
have  been  denounced  upon  persons  who  shall  publish, 
and  even  those  who  shall  possess,  such  books. 
Under  a  King  of  Spain,  by  Papal  direction  and 
sanction,  death  was  the  penalty  for  those  who  pos¬ 
sessed  books  forbidden  by  the  Sacred  Congregation 
of  the  Index. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  does  not  merely 
object  to  the  Bible,  and  to  history;  but  it  also 
objects  to  science,  it  objects  to  literature,  it  objects 
to  every  department  of  knowledge  that  is  contrary 
to  its  pretensions ;  and  that  objection  is  carried  so 
far,  that  the  curse  of  excommunication  is  pronounced 
on  any  who  shall  dare  to  have  books  which  they 


224 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


have  proscribed,  and  shall  presume  to  study  books 
which  they  have  denounced.  You  will  be  interested 
at  the  citation  of  one  sample  of  how  their  policy 
worked  in  a  matter  of  science  and  scientific  investi¬ 
gation.  On  the  fifth  day  of  May,  1616,  The  Sacred 
Congregation  of  the  Index  denounced  and  forbade 
the  Copernican  theory  that  the  earth  moves  round 
the  sun.  They  denounced  it  as  a  heresy  ;  cursed 
th  ose  that  taught  it,  anathematized  those  that  printed 
it,  and  threatened  those  that  believed  it.  There  has 
been  a  great  deal  of  wriggling  on  the  part  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  to  avoid  the  responsibility 
of  this  act,  but  truth  is  strong  ;  and  when  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  grapples  with  the  truth  of  history, 
history  is  ultimately  sure  to  win  in  the  conflict. 
Later,  in  1620,  they  denounced  Copernicus  by  name. 
Then  they  denounced  Galileo,  and  arrested  him,  and 
threatened  him,  and  imprisoned  him,  and  made  him 
affirm  that  the  earth  did  not  move  around  the  sun  ; 
and  when  he  said  it,  he  muttered  under  his  breath, 
“But  it  does  move.”  Galileo’s  book  appeared  in 
1632,  and  was  condemned  in  1634.  That  edict  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  left  the  Copernican 
theory  on  the  li-t  of  forbidden  books  in  the  Index 
Expurgatorius  until  1835.  Every  man,  therefore, 
who  dared,  up  to  1835,  to  believe  that  the  earth 
moved  round  the  sun,  or  dared  to  teach  it  or  print 
it,  or  who  had  a  book  in  his  house  or  in  his  posses¬ 
sion  which  stated  it, —  every  such  man  was  excom¬ 
municated  and  damned  by  the  Pope  of  Rome  and 
The  Sacred  Congregation.  Do  you  propose  to  take 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


22  5 


your  science  from  an  authority  like  that?  Yet  if  in 
the  public  schools  the  movement  of  the  earth  round 
the  sun  had  been  taught  anytime  before  1835,  Rom¬ 
anists  would  have  objected  just  as  strongly  to  this 
Copernican  theory  that  the  earth  moves  round  the 
sun  as  they  object  to  Swinton’s  History  ;  and  I  sup¬ 
pose  that  some  cowards  would  have  let  them  forbid 
the  book  in  the  public  schools.  I  do  not  believe  we 
are  ready  to  have  our  text-books  assorted  by  such 
scientists.  In  1835,  from  the  Index  JExpurgatorius , 
(of  which,  fortunately,  I  happen  to  have  through  the 
kindness  of  a  friend  two  copies),  and  without  a  word 
of  apology,  the  books  on  the  Copernican  theory,  for 
the  first  time  in  two  centuries,  were  omitted  from  the 
list  of  forbidden  publications. 

In  the  year  1844,  there  was  formed  in  the  City  of 
Montreal  the  Montreal  Institute, —  a  company  of 
young  men  mostly  Roman  Catholics,  who  desired  to 
improve  themselves  through  association  and  through 
literature.  They  gathered  together  a  library  of 
about  nine  thousand  volumes  ;  and  at  length  it  be  min 
to  be  noised  abroad  that  there  were  heretical  books 
in  the  library.  The  Bishops  interfered,  and  endeav¬ 
ored  to  break  up  the  Montreal  Institute.  The 
gentlemen  composing  that  Institute  handed  out  their 
catalogue  and  said:  “  What  is  there  here  that  is 
obnoxious?”  There  was  no  answer.  Hostility  did 
not  take  the  form  of  debate.  It  was  understood 
that  Milton’s  “  Paradise  Lost  ”  and  Dante's  “  Inferno” 
and  “  Paradiso  ”  were  among  the  books  objected  to. 
An  edict  of  ecclesiastical  censure  was  pronounced  on 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


226 

the  Montreal  Institute,  and  that  Institute  appealed 
to  Rome.  Among  the  leading  men  of  the  Institute 
was  Joseph  Guibord,  a  printer,  a  man  of  great  intelli¬ 
gence,  who  became  the  object  of  distinct  hostility 
because  of  his  desire  to  perpetuate  the  Institute  and 
keep  their  library  intact.  While  the  matter  was 
pending,  Joseph  Guibord  died,  and  the  attempt  was 
made  to  bury  him  in  what  is  known  as  “  sacred 
ground,”  where  he  owned  a  lot,  somewhere  about  the 
last  of  November,  1869.  The  attempt  was  met  by  the 
resistance  of  a  mob  of  Roman  Catholics,  inspired  by 
the  leading  church  officials,  who  so  far  hindered  and 
forbade  that  poor  body  being  laid  to  rest  in  the  lot 
which  he  had  purchased,  that  the  remains  were  taken 
to  a  Protestant  cemetery,  and  temporarily  placed  in 
the  vault.  Then  began  litigation  in  the  courts,  to  see 
whether  the  body  of  Joseph  Guibord  should  lie  in 
his  own  lot.  What  was  his  offence?  He  belonged 
to  the  Montreal  Institute  which  had  not  instantly 
yielded  when  the  hand  of  the  Bishops  was  laid  upon 
it;  because  it  was  seeking  for  intelligence,  and,  to  a 
degree,  for  freedom  of  thought.  An  appeal  was 
made  to  the  courts  to  permit  the  body  to  be  buried. 
Some  courts  decided  one  way,  and  some  another. 
Meanwhile,  Mrs.  Guibord,  who  was  a  brave  and 
earnest  woman  and  a  Roman  Catholic,  gave  her 
effort  to  the  work  of  securing  the  right  to  bury  her 
husband  in  his  own  cemetery  lot,  and  dying,  left  her 
estate  for  that  purpose.  At  length  an  appeal  was 
taken  to  the  privy  council  of  Great  Britain,  and  it 
was  decided  that  the  body  should  be  buried  in 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


227 


sacred  ground.  Then  followed  mobs,  disturbances 
and  denunciations,  the  like  of  which  even  Canada, 
priest-ridden  as  it  is,  had  hardly  seen.  The  grave 
was  prepared  ;  and  finally,  guarded  by  the  military, 
in  the  presence  of  a  howling  mob,  the  body  of  Joseph 
Guibord  was  laid  in  the  grave,  and  cement  of  the 
strongest  sort,  mixed  with  iron,  was  poured  in  over 
it,  in  order  to  keep  it  safe  from  the  fury  of  the 
enraged  Romanists.  Then  the  Bishop  of  Montreal 
apostolically  cursed  the  ground  where  this  man’s 
remains  lay  —  cursed  it  with  mocking  tones,  as  if  the 
voice  of  Joseph  Guibord  was  speaking  from  the 
ground.  Some  one  inquired  how  far  down  his  curse 
went,  as  the  wife’s  body  was  laid  in  the  same  grave, 
and  she  was  a  good  Catholic  and  not  excommunicated  ! 
He  cursed  it  with  the  remarkable  facility  for  cursing 
which  priests  have,  in  the  presence  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  of  Montreal,  and  went  unrebuked  by  his 
fellow-bishops,  and  by  the  Pope  of  Rome.  What 
was  the  offence  for  which  Joseph  Guibord’s  dust  was 
cursed?  That  he  belonged  to  a  library  association 
which  dared  to  think  without  priestly  and  papal 
repression,  and  to  own  Milton’s  “  Paradise  Lost”  and 
Dante’s  “  Paradiso  ”  and  “  Inferno.”  I  should  think 
that  the  Bishop  of  Montreal  might  well  take  Dante’s 
“Inferno”  and  read  in  it  a  description  of  his  own  future 
habitation,  if  he  dared  to  curse  a  man  for  loving 
truth  and  freedom.  Now  the  Roman  Church  blesses, 
and  now  again  curses,  and  it  is  a  little  doubtful  when 
and  why. 

Forty  or  fifty  years  ago,  Rosmini,  a  distinguished 


228 


Romanism  and ^  the  Republic. 


ecclesiastic  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  a  man  of 
learning,  who  was  an  intimate  friend  of  three  of  the 
Popes,  published  certain  scientific  books.  These 
books  were  repeatedly  attacked,  and  came  three 
times  before  The  Congregation  of  the  Sacred  Index. 
Every  time  they  came,  the  Congregation  said  there 
was  nothing  in  them  contrary  to  the  theology  or 
doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  But  the 
Jesuits  were  busy.  They  kept  insisting  that  these 
books  ought  not  to  be  circulated.  The  Sacred 
Congregation  insisted  that  they  should  ;  and  finally, 
the  Pope  issued  an  edict  that  there  should  be  nothing 
more  said  about  it.  The  Jesuits  worked  on  as  they 
always  do,  Pope  or  no  Pope,  and  within  the  last  few 
months  The  Sacred  Congregation  have  taken  forty  of 
the  leading  propositions  of  Rosmini’s  book,  con¬ 
demned  them,  and  demanded  that  those  shall  be 
taken  out  of  the  books,  if  they  are  circulated.  When 
you  yield  your  Swinton’s  History  in  the  public  schools, 
when  you  yield  your  Bible,  you  are  simply  on  the 
line  of  yielding  everything.  There  is  no  limit  or 
stopping-place  at  which  Rome  says  :  You  may  per¬ 
manently  have  these  books  in  your  schools. 

I  want  you  to  notice  this ;  because,  when  our 
Massachusetts  committees,  in  their  desire  to  be  kind 
and  fair,  begin  to  yield,  they  begin  to  slide  down  an 
inclined  plane  with  accelerated  velocity,  and  they 
do  not  know  where  they  will  stop.  You  never  can 
satisfy  Rome  until  you  are  her  absolute  slave.  This 
is  the  point  at  which  I  purposed  to  close  my  last 
Sunday  evening’s  sermon. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


229 


I  was  hoping  to  get  as  far  as  this.  Then  I  meant 
to  show  you  that,  in  order  to  satisfy  Roman  Catholics, 
you  must  take  out  of  the  public  schools  all  our 
Bibles ;  all  books  that  speak  disrespectfully  of  those 
Popes  of  whom  I  read  you  so  many  interesting  facts 
last  Sabbath  evening ;  all  books  that  condemn  any 
doctrine  that  has  been  praised  by  Rome,  or  praise 
any  doctrine  that  has  been  condemned  by  Rome  ; 
therefore,  all  works  on  political  economy  according 
to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ;  all  books  on  natural  science  that  are  obnoxi¬ 
ous  to  the  priests  of  The  Sacred  Congregation.  And, 
by  the  way,  how  long  will  they  allow  us  to  teach 
Chemistry?  since  chemistry  proves  that  the  “  Sacri¬ 
fice  of  the  Mass”  is  folly,  and  that  the  wafer  is  no 
more  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  after  the 
priest  has  spoken  over  it,  than  it  was  before. 

So  our  scientific  books  and  our  Bibles,  our  histo¬ 
ries  and  our  literature,  are  to  be  taken  out  of  the 
schools,  and  you  want  to  know  what  we  shall  have 
in  their  place.  What  kind  of  a  system  of  public 
education  does  Rome  intend  to  give  us  ?  What  do 
they  want  taught  in  our  schools  ?  and  if  we  yield  to 
them  what  shall  we  have?  When  we  know  this, 
then  we  shall  know  the  plans  of  this  Church,  and 
what  we  can  rely  upon  for  the  future.  To  answer 
these  important  questions,  I  have  so  much  to  say  that 
I  can  adorn  it  very  little,  and  must  speak  with  great 
directness  concerning  the  general  system  of  Roman 
Catholic  education.  In  this  first  book,  “Judges 
of  the  Faith,”  page  139,  I  read  the  following  words 


230 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


from  The  Sacred  Congregation  of  Rome,  endorsed 
by  The  Third  Baltimore  Plenary  Council  :  “  Reserv¬ 
ing  the  exclusive  rigid  of  the  priest  as  regards,  partic¬ 
ularly,  the  appointments  and  dismissal  of  teachers,  the 
discipline  of  the  school,  and  superintendence  in  spir¬ 
ituals.”  We  are,  then,  to  have  a  system  of  education 
as  far  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  goes,  that  is 
exclusively  presided  over  by  priests  :  and  they,  as 
you  know,  are  compelled  to  further  this  scheme  of 
parochial  schools,  for  the  sake  of  their  own  prefer¬ 
ment  ;  which  they  will  lose,  unless  they  do  further  it. 
The  duty  of  the  laity  is  also  prescribed  in  this 
book,  in  the  following  words  :  “  Xor  with  less  zeal 

and  prudence  is  the  erroneous  opinion  to  be 
uprooted  from  the  minds  of  the  laity  ;  viz.,  that  the 
solicitude  for  the  school  is  to  be  confined  to  that 
portion  of  the  congregation  actually  and  directly 
making  use  of  it  for  their  children.  It  must  be 
plainly  demonstrated,  that  the  profits  and  blessings 
accruing  from  the  preservation  of  faith  and  morals 
in  parochial  schools  redound  to  the  benefit  of  the 
whole  community.”  That  is  to  say,  if  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  parents  have  no  children  in  the  parochial  schools, 
The  Third  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore  expressly 
insists  that  those  parents  shall  pay  their  money  into 
those  schools  for  their  support,  and  shall  do  all  they 
can  for  their  prosperity.  But,  remember,  it  is  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  conscience  with  many  Roman  Catholics  that 
they  shall  not  support  parochial  schools.  What 
then?  We  heard  them  claim,  that  because  their  con¬ 
sciences  demand  parochial  schools,  therefore  we  must 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


231 


yield  our  system  to  them.  And  now  this  is  their 
demand,  within  their  own  communion,  that  those  who 
have  no  children  in  the  parochial  schools,  and  who  do 
not  believe  in  the  parochial  schools,  shall  be  com¬ 
pelled  to  support  them.  How  about  conscience? 
Is  this  freedom  of  conscience?  I  tell  you,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  never  says  Conscience  when  it  has 
any  other  meaning  than  submission  to  the  Pope. 
Never  ! 

We  have  it  indicated  here  in  this  book,  on  page 
141,  that  the  preferred  teachers  of  Rome  are  monks 
and  nuns.  We  have  the  statement  of  Father  Chini- 
quy,  who  was  fifty  years  in  the  Romish  Church,  and 
who  has  written  one  of  the  ablest  books  on  this 
question  that  we  have,  that  Jesuits  are  always  pre¬ 
ferred  as  teachers  in  Roman  Catholic  schools.  I 
noticed  in  one  of  our  papers  in  this  city,  yesterday  or 
the  day  before,  a  list  of  the  professors  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  College  of  the  Holy  Cross  in  this  city  for 
the  ensuing  year.  Every  one  of  those  gentlemen 
had  after  his  name  the  letters  S.  J.  What  does  that 
mean?  Society  of  Jesus  —  Jesuits.  In  other  words, 
they  are  all  Jesuits,  every  man  of  them.  And  that 
paper  which  is  just  now  fondling  the  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  Church,  and  may  be  assumed  to  be  accurate  on 
Romanist  matters  — the  paper  that  is  giving  us  col¬ 
umns  of  Roman  Catholic  news,  and  scarcely  a  refer¬ 
ence  to  any  other  church  —  is  responsible  for  the 
statement  that  all  the  teachers  in  this  Worcester 
College  are  Jesuits.  We  learned  something  about 


232  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

the  Jesuits  not  very  long  ago.  Here  is  a  little 
more. 

In  the  Jesuit  oath  (for  you  want  to  know  what 
kind  of  men  are  preferred  for  this  teaching)  you  find 
the  following  words  :  “  I  do  renounce  and  disown 
any  allegiance  as  due  to  any  heretical  king,  prince  or 
state  named  Protestant,  or  obedience  to  any  of  their 
inferior  magistrates  or  officers.  I  do  further  declare, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  the 
Calvinists,  Huguenots,  and  others  of  the  name  of 
Protestants,  to  be  damnable  ;  and  they  themselves  are 
damned,  and  to  be  damned,  that  will  not  forsake  the 
same.”  (I  wish  they  were  a  little  freer  with  salva¬ 
tion,  and  not  so  free  with  damnation.  It  seems  to 
me  that  they  know  more  about  that  subject  than  I 
ever  heard  before.)  “I  do  further  declare,”  says 
the  Jesuit,  who  is  to  be  the  chief  teacher  in  these 
schools,  “that  I  will  help,  assist  and  advise  all  or 
any  of  His  Holiness’  agents  in  any  place  wherever  1 
shall  be,  in  England,  Scotland  or  Ireland,  or  in  any 
other  territory  or  kingdom  I  shall  come  to  ;  and  do 
my  utmost  to  extirpate  the  heretical  Protestant’s 
doctrine,  and  to  destroy  all  their  pretended  powers, 
legal  or  otherwise.  I  do  further  promise  and  declare 
that,  notwithstanding  I  am  dispensed  with  to  assume 
any  religion  heretical,”  (that  is,  he  may  come  and 
join  this  church  and  lie  all  through,  even  at  God’s 
altar,  provided  there  is  some  Jesuit  end  to  be  attained 
by  it,)  “for  the  propagating  of  the  Mother  Church’s 
interests,  to  keep  secret  and  private  all  her  agents’ 
councils  from  time  to  time,  as  they  intrust  me,  and 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


233 


not  to  divulge,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  word,  writ¬ 
ing  or  circumstance  whatsoever,  but  to  execute  all 
that  shall  be  proposed,”  etc.  (See  “Romanism,” 
A.  P.  Grover,  Chicago,  1887,  page  116.)  These 
are  the  favorite  and  choice  teachers,  the  chosen 
teachers,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church ;  men  who 
have  announced  their  hostility  to  every  form  of 
government,  of  teaching,  and  of  religion,  except  the 
Church  of  Rome  ;  and  men  that  swear  absolute  devo¬ 
tion  to  her  in  all  that  they  do,  and  are  privileged  to 
do  ;  and  play  the  hypocrite  in  any  assembly,  and  join 
any  church,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  its  secrets  ; 
and  vow  solemnly  to  act  wholly  in  the  interests  of 
the  Pope  and  the  papacy.  And  yet  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  prates  about  morality  in  schools,  and 
thinks  our  teachers  are  not  teaching  morality  enough, 
and  fears  that  their  youth,  their  tender  youth,  will 
be  corrupted  by  our  teachers,  and  wants  to  put  them 
under  the  care  of  the  Jesuits,  men  that  are  perjured, 
as  is  everyone  who  has  sworn  allegiance  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  this  country  and  has  sworn  oaths  of 
papal  obedience  against  it ;  she  wants  these  men  to 
be  the  leading  educators  of  America  ! 

Toward  what  are  they  aiming?  What  is  their 
purpose,  and  what  do  the}^  mean  by  education  ?  This 
is  a  most  interesting  query.  I  shall  answer  you  in 
their  own  words,  for  I  am  very  much  interested  to 
know  from  their  own  lips  what  they  do  mean.  I 
find  the  following  declaration  of  their  idea  of  educa¬ 
tion,  which  I  want  you  to  contrast  with  ours.  The 
Catholic  World  for  April  1871,  gives  the  Roman 


234 


ltomanism  and  the  Republic . 


Catholic  idea  of  education  as  follows  :  44  Education  is 
the  American  hobby — regarded,  as  uneducated  or 
poorly  educated  people  usually  regard  it,  as  a  sort 
of  panacea  for  all  the  ills  that  flesh  is  heir  to.  We 
ourselves,  as  Catholics,  are  as  decidedly  as  any 
other  class  of  American  citizens  in  favor  of  universal 
education,  as  thorough  and  extensive  as  possible — if 
its  quality  suits  us.  We  do  not  indeed  prize  as  highly 
as  some  of  our  countrymen  appear  to  do  the  ability 
to  read,  write  and  cipher.  Some  men  are  born  to 
be  leaders ,  and  the  rest  are  born  to  be  led.  (Who  is 
born  to  be  led  ;  and  who  is  born  to  be  a  leader?  is  a 
fair  question.)  44  The  best  ordered  and  administered 
state,  is  that  in  which  the  jew  are  ivell  educated  and 
lead ,  and  the  many  are  trained  to  obedience,  are  wil¬ 
ling  to  be  directed,  content  to  follow ,  and  do  not  aspire 
to  be  leaders.  In  extending  education,  and  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  train  all  to  be  leaders,  we  have  only  extended 
presumption,  pretension,  conceit,  indocility,  and 
brought  incapacity  to  the  surface.  We  believe  that 
the  peasantry ,  in  old  Catholic  countries,  two  centuries 
ago,  were  better  educated ;  although  for  the  most  part 
unable  to  read  or  write,  than  are  the  great  body  of 
American  people  to-day .”  Now  you  understand  that 
this  theory  of  education  states  that  the  few  shall  be 
educated  and  shall  be  leaders  ;  that  the  many  shall  be 
educated,  whether  they  know  how  to  read  and  write 
or  not,  and  shall  be  led.  That  is  Roman  Catholic 
education.  Do  you  say  that  this  is  only  my  state¬ 
ment  of  it?  No  ;  it  is  their  own.  And  do  you  want 
it  emphasized?  Look  at  Italy,  and  France,  and 


Ilomanism  and  the  Republic. 


23  5 


Spain,  and  Portugal,  and  Austria,  and  Mexico,  and 
South  America,  if  you  desire  illustrations.  What  is 
their  idea  of  education  ?  The  few  to  be  taught  and 
lead,  the  many  to  do  what  tyrants  have  made  their 
subjects  do  through  all  the  years  of  this  suffering 
world’s  history  —  to  grind  in  their  prison-houses  for 
the  enrichment  of  despots.  That  is  their  theory  ; 
and  they  want  to  transplant  it  here.  I  do  not  think 
I  ever  heard  a  statement  more  utterly  contrary  to  the 
American  policy  concerning  the  rights  of  man  than 
this. 

What  is  our  theory  of  American  education  ?  It  is, 
to  teach  every  man  all  he  can  learn.  It  is,  that  the 
boy  on  the  tow-path  shall  come  to  be  President,  if  he 
knows  enough.  It  is,  that  the  tanner-man  shall  lead 
the  greatest  armies  of  history  in  the  grandest  of  all 
struggles  for  human  rights.  It  is,  that  the  boy  from 
the  shoemaker’s  bench  in  Natick  shall  preside  over 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  which  is  the  grand¬ 
est  House  of  Lords  in  the  world.  It  is  Garfield,  and 
Grant,  and  Henry  Wilson.  This  is  American  educa¬ 
tion.  What  is  Roman  Catholic  education  ?  The  few 
to  lead,  the  many  to  be  slaves.  Now  the  Roman 
Catholics  know  this.  The  more  intelligent  among 
them  know  it.  Their  leaders  know  it.  The  beating 
hearts  »of  many  American  citizens  that  protest,  al¬ 
though  within  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  against 
this  type  of  education,  affirm  it.  And  what  does  the 
Freemans  Journal  say?  Fortunately,  I  have  just  a 

little  extract  from  that.  The  New  York  Freeman's 

% 

Journal  and  Roman  Catholic  Register ,  for  March  12, 


236 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


1881,  describing  parochial  education,  says :  “A 
smattering  of  the  catechism  (in  parochial  schools) 
is  supplied  to  fit  them  for  the  duties  of  life  and  inti¬ 
mates  that  these  schools  and  their  policies,  then,  are 
only  “apologies,  compromises,  systemless  pretenses” 
for  education.  That  is  what  the  Freemans  Journal 
thinks  of  parochial  schools.  Dr.  O..  A.  Brownson, 
who  was  a  great  authority  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  for  twenty  years,  and  whose  Review  was  pub¬ 
lished  in  New  York,  and  republished  in  London  dur¬ 
ing  that  time,-  Dr.  A.  O.  Brownson  tells  what  he 
'thinks,  from  inside  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  con¬ 
cerning  Roman  Catholic  education.  In  the  number 
for  January,  1862,  Broivnson's  Review  thus  spoke 
of  the  quality  of  Roman  Catholic  schools  and  colleges. 
(Now  remember  that  Brownson  had  more  power  as  a 
Roman  Catholic  writer  in  this  country  than  any  other 
man,  so  far  as  power  of  statement  and  power  of  defi¬ 
nition  could  give  it.)  He  says  :  “  These  schools  prac¬ 
tically  fail  to  recognize  human  progress.  As  far  as 
wTe  are  able  to  trace  the  effect  of  the  most  approved 
Catholic  education  of  to-da}',  whether  at  home  or 
abroad,  it  tends  to  repress,  rather  than  quicken  the 
life  of  the  pupil ;  to  unlit,  rather  than  prepare  him  for 
the  active  and  zealous  discharge  either  of  his  relig- 

O  O 

ious  or  social  duties.  They  Avho  are  educated  in  our 
schools  seem  misplaced  and  mistimed  in  the  world ; 
as  if  born  and  educated  for  a  world  that  has  ceased  to 
exist.  Comparatively  few  of  them  [Catholic  gradu¬ 
ates]  take  their  stand  as  scholars,  or  as  men  on  a  level 
with  the  Catholics  of  non-Catholic  colleges  :  and  those 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


287 


who  do  take  that  stand,  do  it  by  throwing  aside  near¬ 
ly  all  they  learned  at  their  own  colleges,  and  adopt¬ 
ing  the  ideas  and  principles,  the  modes  of  thought 
and  action,  they  find  in  the  general  civilization  of  the 
country  in  which  we  live.  The  cause  of  the  failure 
of  what  we  call  Catholic  education  is,  in  our  judg¬ 
ment,  in  the  fact  that  we  do  not  educate  for  the  pres¬ 
ent  or  the  future,  but  for  the  past.  We  do  not  mean 
that  the  dogmas  are  not  scrupulously  taught  in  all 
our  schools  and  colleges  ;  nor  that  the  words  of  the 
catechism  are  not  duly  insisted  upon.  We  concede 
this.  There  can  be  no  question  that  what  passes  for 
Catholic  education  in  this  or  any  other  country,  has 
its  ideal  of  perfection  in  the  past,  and  that  it  resists 
as  un-Catholic,  irreligious  and  opposed  to  God,  the 
tendencies  of  modern  civilization.  ”  (Go  on,  Mr. 
Brownson.  I  wish  you  were  here  to  say  this  as  you 
could  say  it.  But  I  suppose  he  is  in  purgatory!) 

"The  work  it  gives  its  subjects,  or  prepares  them  to 
perform,  is  not  the  work  of  carrying  it  forward,  but 
that  of  resisting  it,  driving  it  back,  anathematizing  it, 
as  at  war  with  the  Gospel  ;  and  either  of  neglecting 
it  altogether,  or  taking  refuge  in  the  cloister,  in  an 
exclusive  or  exaggerated  asceticism,  always  border¬ 
ing  on  immorality  (Hear  that  again  !  He  says, 
they  are  driving  back  progress,  and  either  neglecting 
the  Gospel,  or  taking  refuge  in  the  cloister,  in  an 
exclusive  or  exaggerated  asceticism,  always  border¬ 
ing  on  immorality)  ;  or  of  restoring  a  former  order 
of  civilization,  no  longer  a  living  order,  and  which 
humanity  has  evidently  left  behind,  and  is  resolved 


238 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


shall  never  be  restored.”  Brownson’s  Review,  Jan¬ 
uary  and  April,  1862.  A  truthful  confession  ! 

You  have  then  from  Roman  Catholic  authorities, 
what  their  idea  of  education  shall  be  ;  and  you  have 
the  opinion  of  one  of  their  leading  men  as  to  what 
its  effect  is.  He  goes  on  further,  and  says,  it  is  a 
foreign  education,  and  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
people  by  it  are  made  a  foreign  people  in  the  land 
where  they  live.  Father  Chiniquy  says  (and  he  had 
a  Roman  Catholic  education  in  their  very  best 
schools  in  Canada)  :  “The  purpose  of  Rome  is  to 
educate  a  man  just  enough  so  he  will  kiss  the  toe  of 
the  Pope.”  And  further  he  says,  speaking  of  the 
repression  of  inquiry  :  “  You  are  told  that  you  must 
not  question  your  superior  in  any  matter,  but  yield 
implicit  obedience  to  him,  and  the  only  liberty 
allowed  is  the  liberty  of  obedience.”  He  is  well 
qualified  to  speak,  and  in  no  degree  discredited 
because  his  mind  and  conscience  were  too  well  edu¬ 
cated  to  permit  him  to  remain  a  Romish  satellite. 
So  much  for  the  general  idea  of  Roman  Catholic  edu- 
cation. 

Priests  and  monks,  nuns  and  Jesuits  for  teachers; 
a  type  of  education  that  ignores  the  masses,  while  it 
makes  the  few  leaders  ;  a  type  of  education  that 
gives  a  smattering  of  the  the  catechism ;  a  system  of 
the  past,  and  not  for  the  future  ;  a  method  that  pros¬ 
trates  the  intellect,  instead  of  lifting  it  up  ;  a  t}pe 
of  education  that  makes  the  peasants  of  two  hundred 
years  ago  more  an  ideal  community  than  the  people 
of  this  enlightened  commonwealth,  who  have  had  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


239 


education  which  America  has  given  throughout  all  its 
history  ! 

But  now  what  do  they  demand  shall  be  taught  in 
our  public  schools  ?  for  I  must  hasten  in  order  to 
brinsf  this  to  your  attention. 

First  of  all,  they  demand  that  Romanism  shall  be 
taught;  and  I  will  read  this  demand  from  the  opinion 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  Netherlands,  who  speak  for  all 
the  Bishops,  found  on  the  seventy-second  page  of  the 
“  Judges  of  Faith  ”  :  “  It  is  further  necessary  that 

the  schools  teach  the  children  and  make  them  practice 
the  Catholic  religion.”  The  worship  of  the  Virgin 
must  be  taught ;  that  is  stated  on  the  132d  page  in  this 
book.  Papal  infallibility  must  be  taught :  that  is 
exactly,  in  so  many  words,  what  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  Germany  said  after  the  Vatican  Council,  and  what 
the  government  refused  to  have  done  ;  and  after  1870 
laws  of  Germany  were  made,  in  order  that  the  Papal 
infallibility  should  not  be  established,  and  the  author¬ 
ity  of  the  emperor  overthrown.  They  profess  the 
right  to  teach  the  most  unqualified  sectarianism. 
Some  of  the  text-books  that  they  have  already  used 
in  this  country,  in  schools  where  they  have  the  power, 
are  sectarian  to  the  very  last  degree. 

You  recollect  that  they  call  our  schools  “  godless 
schools.”  Godless  schools  !  Then  I  suppose  they 
would  call  their  schools  godly  schools.  Would  you 
like  to  hear  what  they  teach  in  these  “godly” 
schools?  Let  me  take  time  to  tell  you.  Fortun¬ 
ately,  a  text-book  is  occasionally  issued  which  dis¬ 
closes  the  spirit  of  their  teaching  without  disguise. 


240 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


There  is  a  volume,  one  of  a  series,  entitled,  “  Familiar 
Explanation  of  Christian  Doctrine,  adapted  for  the 
family  and  more  advanced  students  in  Catholic 
schools  and  colleges,”  published  in  1875,  by  Kreuzer 
Brothers,  Baltimore,  and  sanctioned  by  Archbishop 
Bay  ley.  Lesson  XII.  is  called,  “  No  salvation  out¬ 
side  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.”  The  questions 
and  answers  run  thus  (this  is  what  they  want  to 
use  instead  of  Swinton’s  History)  :  “  Q.  Since  the 

Roman  Catholic  Church  alone  is  the  true  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ,  can  any  one  who  dies  outside  of  the 
Church  be  saved?  A.  He  can  not.  Q.  Did  Jesus 
Christ  himself  assure  us  most  solemnly,  and  in  plain 
words,  that  no  one  can  be  saved  out  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church?  A.  He  did;  when  he  said  to 
his  Apostles,  ‘  Go  and  teach  all  nations,’  etc.”  (I 
confess,  I  don’t  see  the  connection.)  “  Q.  What  do 
the  Fathers  of  the  Church  say  about  the  salvation  of 
those  who  die  out  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church? 
A.  They  all,  without  any  exception,  pronounce  them 
infallibly  lost  forever.”  A  little  farther  on  may  be 
found  the  following:  “  Q.  Are  there  any  other 
reasons  to  show  that  heretics,  or  Protestants,  who  die 
out  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  not  saved ; 
A.  There  are  several.  They  cannot  be  saved 
because,  (1)  They  have  no  divine  faith  ;  (2)  They 
make  a  liar  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
of  the  Apostles;  (3)  They  have  no  faith  in  Christ. 

(4)  They  fell  away  from  the  true  Church  of  Christ. 

(5)  They  are  too  proud  to  submit  to  the  Pope,  the 
vicar  of  Christ.  (G)  They  cannot  perform  any 


Ilomanism  and  the  Republic. 


241 


good  works  whereby  they  can  obtain  heaven.  (7) 
They  do  not  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
(8)  They  die  in  their  sins.  (9)  They  ridicule  and 
blaspheme  the  mother  of  God  and  his  saints.  (10) 
They  slander  the  spouse  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Church.”  Again,  page  97:  “  Q.  Now  do 

you  think  that  God,  the  Father,  will  admit  into 
heaven  those  who  thus  make  liars  of  his  son,  Jesus 
Christ,  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  Apostles?  A. 
No  ;  he  will  let  them  have  their  portion  with  Lucifer 
in  hell,  who  first  rebelled  against  Christ,  and  who  is 
the  father  of  liars.  Q.  Have  Protestants  any  faith 
in  Christ?  A.  They  never  had.  Q.  Why  not? 
A.  Because  there  never  lived  such  a  Christ  as  they 
imagine  and  believe  in.  Q.  In  what  kind  of  a 
Christ  do  they  believe?  A.  In  such  a  one  of  whom 
they  can  make  a  liar,  etc.,  etc.  Q.  Will  such  a 
faith  in  such  a  Christ  save  Protestants?  A.  No 
sensible  man  will  assert  such  an  absurdity.  Q. 
What  will  Christ  say  to  them  on  the  dav  of  J uda- 
ment?  A.  I  know  you  not,  because  you  never  knew 
me.”  Again,  page  104  :  “  Q.  Are  Protestants  willing 
to  confess  their  sins  to  a  Catholic  Bishop,  or  priest, 
who  alone  has  power  from  Christ  to  forgive  sins?” 
(1  could  answer  that  myself,  without  looking  on  the 
book),  "'Whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  for¬ 
given  them.’  A.  No  ;  for  they  generally  have  an 
utter  aversion  to  confession,  and  therefore  their  sins 
will  not  be  forgiven  throughout  all  eternity.  Q. 
What  follows  from  this?  A.  That  they  will  die  in 
their  sins,  and  are  damned.”  These  are  the  lessons 


242  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

instilled  by  Romish  teachers  in  the  minds  of  Ameri¬ 
can  youth.  A  child  goes  to  one  of  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  schools,  and  soon  learns  of  parents,  brothers  and 
sisters,  that  the  Christ  in  whom  they  believe  is  no 
true  Christ,  and  that  they  will  all  die  in  their  sins 
and  be  damned,  and  not  Romanists.  This  is  not  the 
teaching  of  an  obscure  priest,  but  of  Archbishop 
Bay  ley. 

Would  you  rather  have  a  godly  school  or  a  godless 
school,  according  to  their  definition?  I  confess 
that  I  begin  to  see  why  they  think  and  talk  so  much 
about  being  damned.  It  is  because  people  who  tell 
lies  like  those  above  quoted  deserve  to  be.  Here  is 
a  text-book  teaching  hatred,  hatred  of  all  other 
religions  except  that  of  Rome.  Says  Rev.  Louis  N”. 
Beaudry,  a  very  gentle  and  sweet-spirited  man,  who 
came  out  of  a  very  pious  Romish  family  :  “  The  first 
lesson  that  I  learned  as  a  Catholic  child  was  to  hate 
Protestants.”  Says  a  gentleman  in  this  city,  who  is  a 
convert  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  who  is 
now  a  minister  of  the  French  Baptist  Church  :  “When 
I  was  a  little  boy,  in  Canada,  at  school,  we  were 
encouraged  in  dislike  of  our  Protestant  fellow-pupils, 
so  that  we  thought  it  right  to  throw  missiles  at 
them,  and  abuse  them  ;  and  often  they  went  bleeding 
from  the  encounter,  having  committed  no  offence 
against  us,  only  they  were  Protestants.”  Such  a 
spirit  as  that  of  the  text-book  above  quoted  will  not 
assist  to  the  improvement  or  elevation  of  education ; 
nor  will  teaching  of  that  kind  be  likely  to  give  us 
civilization,  but  rather  barbarism. 


jRomanism  and  the  Republic. 


243 


I  read  to  you  the  other  night  from  Fredet’s  History, 
and  only  refer  to  it  now.  This  is  a  History  that 
justifies  the  Inquisition  ;  that  justifies  the  Popes  of 
Rome  in  the  villanies  of  which  I  read  you  last  Sun¬ 
day  night :  that  justifies  the  massacre  of  Saint 
Bartholomew,  and  the  act  of  the  Pope  who  struck  a 
medal  on  that  occasion  to  celebrate  it.  This  is  a  His¬ 
tory  having  the  date  of  publication  1886,  which  tells 
Roman  Catholics  *  and  tells  us  that,  no  matter  how 
vile  the  Pope  may  be,  he  is  still  as  infallible  as  if 
he  were  good.  And  to  learn  this  is  education ! 
Already,  in  some  schools,  they  have  images,  and  the 
confessional.  I  am  told  there  is  a  school  in  Boston 
where  they  have  introduced  them. 

Now  what  is  the  consequence  of  education  like 
this  ?  I  am  not  theorizing.  I  am  not  telling  you  of 
what  has  not  been  tried.  We  have  nations  for  our 
text-books,  and  ages  for  the  leaves  that  we  turn, 
when  we  inquire  what  Roman  Catholic  education  has 
done,  and  will  do  again.  Survey  the  world  and  see 
what  has  been  produced  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
education,  which  they  would  substitute  for  ours  in 
schools.  What  a  revelation  does  history  disclose  of 
their  policy?  It  has  produced  illiteracy,  pauperism, 
degradation  and  crime.  To  learn  what  Roman 
Catholicism  has  done,  I  turn  to  the  Report  of  the 
Minister  of  Instruction  in  Italy  for  the  year  1864. 

I  have  not  time  to  read  it  all  ;  but  this  distinguished 
man  says:  “Of  every  thousand  males  in  the  old 
provinces  and  Lombardy,  539  were  able  to  read,  and 
461  did  not  know  their  letters.  Of  every  thousand 


244 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


females,  426  could  read,  574  could  not.  In  Naples 
and  Sicily,  of  every  thousand  males,  165  were  able  to 
read,  835  could  not.  Of  every  thousand  females, 
62  could  read,  938  could  not.  That  is,  in 
every  hundred  of  the  population  in  these  Neapolitan 
provinces,  about  ten  only  were  able  to  read.  The 
ratio  of  pupils  to  inhabitants  was,  in  the  old  provin¬ 
ces  and  Lombardy,  one  pupil  for  every  thirteen 
inhabitants  ;  in  the  central  region,  one  for  forty-two  ;  - 
in  Naples  and  Sicily  one  for  seventy-three  ;  while 
the  number  of  pupils  in  Connecticut  was  one  to  Jive . 
Compare  that  with  one  to  seventy-three  and  one  to 
forty-two,  as  you  have  it  in  regions  where  Rome 
has  its  sway.  Out  of  twenty-one  million  people  in 
1864  in  Italy,  three  and  one-half  millions  could  read 
and  write,  and  the  rest  could  not.  We  have  the 
statement  that  in  Spain  seventy-five,  and  some 
authorities  say  eighty  per  cent.,  cannot  read  nor 
write.  In  regard  to  Switzerland,  in  the  year  1842, 
a  Romish  priest,  Franscini,  of  the  Canton  of  Ticino, 
showed  how  much  superior  in  every  respect  the 
Protestant  cantons  were,  giving  among  the  reasons 
the  fact  that  Roman  Catholic  education  prevails  in 
Romish  cantons,  and  Protestant  education  prevails 
elsewhere.  We  have  also  a  picture  of  Ireland,  show¬ 
ing  us  what  the  condition  of  Ireland  was  in  the  ter- 

c. 

ritory  where  the  Romish  Church  was  dominant,  and 
what  it  was  outside  of  the  Romish  counties,  reveal¬ 
ing  the  same  lessons  as  Switzerland.  In  the  Protes¬ 
tant  countries  of  Great  Britain  and  Prussia,  in  1869, 
where  twenty  can  read  and  write,  there  are  but  thir- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


245 


teen  in  the  Roman  Catholic  countries  of  France  and 
Austria.  In  European  countries,  one  in  every  ten 
are  in  schools  in  the  Protestant  countries,  and  but 
one  in  one  hundred  and  twenty-four  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  countries.  In  six  leading  Protestant  coun¬ 
tries  in  Europe,  one  newspaper  or  magazine  is  pub¬ 
lished  to  every  315  inhabitants,  while  in  six  Roman 
Catholic  countries  there  is  but  one  newspaper  to 
every  2,715  people.  It  was  estimated,  in  1850,  that 
at  least  seven-eighths  of  the  twenty  millions  of  peo¬ 
ple  in  Spanish  America  (Mexico,  Cuba,  Central 
America,  and  the  north  and  west  parts  of  South 
America,  etc.)  were  unable  to  read.  See  Barnum’s 
“Romanism  As  It  Is,”  pp.  14-17.  That  is  what  the 
Romish  system  has  done  on  a  large  scale.  In  Mexico, 
90  percent,  of  the  people  cannot  read  and  write. 

Now  I  want  to  ask  one  question  :  If  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  is  animated  l>v  a  desire  to  educate, 
if  they  really  desire  to  spread  sound  learning,  why, 
in  the  name  of  all  that  is  good  and  kind,  do  they  not 
leave  their  children  in  the  schools  of  our  country  to 
be  educated  as  they  ought  to  be,  and  spend  their 
money  in  Mexico,  in  South  America,  in  Spain,  in 
Italy,  in  teaching  Roman  Catholics  there  to  read  and 
write?  Why  do  they  not?  The  answer  is  plain 
enough.  There  is  no  desire  for  general  education 
in  their  minds,  but  only  the  desire  to  advance  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church. 

I  now  invite  your  careful  attention  to  what  is  per¬ 
haps  the  most  convincing  fact  on  the  effects  and  dan¬ 
gers  of  Romish  schools.  I  shall  show  you,  from  plain 


246 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


figures,  that  Romish  education  in  our  country  brings 
forth  illiteracy,  pauperism  and  crime  in  a  startling 
degree  of  increase,  as  compared  with  education  in  our 
public  schools.  We  have  some  figures  concerning 
this  that  I  think  you  can  carry  away  with  you  in 
mind.  Do  you  know  that  parochial  schools  in  Bos¬ 
ton  have,  as  they  claim,  over  60,000  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  children?  And  do  you  know  what  the  effects  of 
Roman  Catholic  parochial  education  are?  There 
are  furnished  to  every  10,000  inhabitants  by  Roman 
Catholic  schools  1,400  illiterates  ;  that  is  to  say,  where 
there  are  10,000  people  whose  children  go  to  the  paro¬ 
chial  schools,  there  are  furnished  1,400  illiterates  from 
such  population  ;  by  the  public  schools  of  21  states 
350  illiterates,  only  one-quarter  as  many  ;  by  the  pub¬ 
lic  schools  of  Massachusetts  71,  while  the  Roman 
Catholic  schools  in  the  same  proportion  furnish  1,400. 
And  how  about  paupers?  Every  10,000  people 
sending  their  children  to  parochial  schools  furnish 
410  paupers  as  the  result  of  that  form  of  education  ; 
by  the  public  schools  of  21  states,  170  paupers  to 
10,000  (  compare  with  410  )  ;  by  the  public  schools 
of  Massachusetts  69  paupers  to  every  10,000,  against 
410  paupers  furnished  by  the  parochial  schools.  Do 
we  want  more  parochial  schools  at  that  rate  ? 

And  how  about  criminals?  By  the  Roman  Catholic 
parochial  schools,  to  every  10,000  of  the  population, 
there  are  furnished  160  criminals  ;  by  the  public  schools 
of  21  states  75,  not  half  as  many;  by  the  public 
schools  of  Massachusetts  there  are  furnished  only  11 
criminals  to  every  10,000  inhabitants,  compared  with 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


247 


160  criminals  furnished  by  every  10,000  who  send 
their  children  to  the  parochial  schools.  That  is,  the 
parochial  schools  furnish  about  fifteen  times  as  many 
criminals  as  the  public  schools  of  Massachusetts. 
There  are  more  children  now  in  school  than  there 
ever  were,  and  still  an  increase  of  crime.  In  France, 
two  or  three  years  ago,  were  reported  in  10,000  lay 
schools  5.55  crimes,  22.29  offences  ;  in  10,000  church 
schools  65.10  crimes  and  90.50  offences.  The  whole 
world  furnishes  proof  of  the  evils  of  parochial  schools. 
What  seems  to  be  the  inference  ?  There  is  a  kind  of 
schooling  that  is  not  a  safeguard  against  crime. 
(Dexter  A.  Hawkins  in  Doc.  XX.  Evangel.  Alliance 
p.  42,  and  elsewhere.) 

I  have  one  final  and  very  important  matter  to  state 
to  you  here  to-night  before  I  close  this  discourse. 
It  is  this  :  Where  the  state  furnishes  money  to  Roman 
Catholic  institutions, — which  is,  you  know,  con¬ 
trary  to  the  genius  of  our  country  and  contrary  to 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States, — the  increase  of 
pauperism  is  enormous.  Why?  Because  the  insti¬ 
tutions  get  an  appropriation  according  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  persons  that  they  have  in  their  orphanages, 
protectories  and  schools  for  juvenile  delinquents;  so 
much  for  each  child.  Just  as  soon  as  they  get 
money  from  the  state  they  begin  to  take  in  children 
whose  parents  are  both  living.  They  get  the  state 
appropriations,  so  much  per  capita ;  then  make  the 
support. of  these  children  come  down  to  the  very  low¬ 
est  figure ;  and  pour  the  balance  of  the  money 
into  the  treasury  of  the  church.  You  want  some 


248 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


proof  of  that?  I  will  give  it  to  you.  There  is  plenty 
of  it;  I  can  assure  you  of  that.  The  “  Report  on 
the  Institutions  for  the  Care  of  Destitute  Children  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  ”  Nineteenth  Annual  Report 
State  Board  of  Charities,  pp.  78,  79,  transmitted  to 
the  Legislature,  Jan.  28,  1886,  shows,  that  in  Kings 
County  there  were,  in  August,  1875,  about  three  hun¬ 
dred  children  in  the  Nursery ,  a  branch  of  the  alms¬ 
house.  These  were  at  that  time  transferred  to  secta¬ 
rian  institutions,  and  the  number  of  dependent  chil¬ 
dren  at  once  increased  wonderfully.  In  August  of 
each  of  the  succeeding  live  years,  the  number  in  the 
county  was  as  follows  :  1876,  670;  1877,  784;  1878, 
1169  ;  1879,  1304  ;  1880,  1479.  This  is  an  increase 
of  five  hundred,  per  cent,  in  six  years,  dating  from  and 
including  1875. 

In  Kings  County,  during  the  five  years  referred 
to,  the  cost  to  the  people  of  the  County  from  this 
pauperizing  of  children,  seven  hundred  and  twenty 
of  whom  were  found  to  have  both  parents  living ,  was 
reported  as  having  risen  from  $40,000  to  $172,000, 
at  a  price  for  each  child  so  large  that  Commissioner 
Ropes  said  that  the  over-crowded  asylums  farmed 
out  those  whom  they  had  no  room  for.  The  propor¬ 
tion  in  different  asylums,  as  reported,  was  :  Roman 
Catholic,  1,298  ;  all  Protestant  denominations,  266  ;. 
Jewish,  17.  Do  not  forget  these  figures.  Just  as 
soon  as  the  state  opens  her  treasury  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  just  so  soon,  by  means  as  dexter¬ 
ous  as  they  are  dishonest,  they  pauperize  their  chil¬ 
dren  and  their  people  to  aggrandize  their  Prelates, 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


249 


their  Bishops,  their  Cardinals  and  their  Church. 
Here  is  the  demonstration  of  the  incomparable  supe¬ 
riority  of  our  system  of  education  to  theirs.  Illiter¬ 
acy,  pauperism,  crime,  degradation  follow  on  the 
Roman  Catholic  methods.  And  what  follows  on 
ours?  Let  the  proud  position  of  our  country  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth  demonstrate.  I  close  to-night 
by  reading  something  as  perfect  in  language  as  it  is 
accurate  in  fact,  which,  though  extended,  I  am  sure 
will  be  interesting  to  the  very  last  word.  The 
following  was  written  by  Victor  Hugo  when  the 
priests  were  striving  to  obtain  control  of  education 
in  France  : 

“  Ah,  we  know  you.  We  know  the  clerical  party  ; 
it  is  an  old  party.  This  it  is  which  has  found  for 
the  truth  those  two  marvellous  supporters,  ignorance 
and  error.  This  it  is  which  forbids  to  science  and 
genius  the  going  beyond  the  Missal,  and  wishes  to 
cloister  thought  in  dogmas.  Every  step  which  the 
intelligence  of  Europe  has  taken  has  been  in  spite  of 
it.  Its  history  is  written  in  the  history  of  human  pro¬ 
gress  ;  but  it  is  written  on  the  back  of  the  leaf.  It  is 
opposed  to  it  all.  This  it  is  which  caused  Prinelli  to 
be  scourged,  for  having  said  the  stars  would  not  fall. 
This  it  is  which  put  Campanella  seven  times  to  the 
torture,  for  saying  that  the  number  of  worlds  was 
infinite,  and  for  having  caught  a  glimpse  at  the  secret 
of  creation.  This  it  is  which  persecuted  Harvey  for 
having  proved  the  circulation  of  the  blood.  In  the 
name  of  Jesus,  it  shut  up  Galileo.  In  the  name  of 
St.  Paul,  it  imprisoned  Christopher  Columbus.  To 


250 


Romanism  and  the  Republic, 


discover  a  law  of  the  heavens  was  an  impiety,  to  find 
a  world  was  a  heresy.  This  it  is  which  anathema¬ 
tized  Pascal  in  the  name  of  religion  ;  Montaigne  in 
the  name  of  morality ;  Moliere  in  the  name  of  both 
morality  and  religion.  For  a  long  time  the  human 
conscience  has  revolted  against  you,  and  now 
demands  of  you  :  k  What  is  it  that  you  wish  of  me?’ 
For  a  long  time,  already,  you  have  tried  to  put  a  gag 
upon  the  human  intellect ;  you  wish  to  be  the  mas¬ 
ters  of  education,  and  there  is  not  a  poet,  not  an 
author,  not  a  thinker,  not  a  philosopher  that  you 
accept.  All  that  has  been  written,  found,  dreamed, 
deduced,  inspired,  imagined,  invented  by  genius,  the 
treasure  of  civilization,  the  venerable  inheritance  of 
generations,  the  common  patrimony  of  knowledge, 
you  reject. 

There  is  a  book  —  a  book  which  is  for  the  world 
what  the  Koran  is  for  Islamism  ;  what  the  Vedas  are 
for  India  —  a  book  which  contains  all  human  wisdom 
illuminated  by  all  divine  wisdom  —  a  book  which  the 
veneration  of  the  people  calls  The  Book  —  The  Bible. 
Well,  your  censure  has  reached  even  that  —  unheard 
of  thing!  Popes  have  proscribed  the  Bible!  How 
astonishing  to  wise  spirits,  how  overpowering  to 
simple  hearts,  to  see  the  finger  of  Pome  placed  upon 
the  book  of  God  !  And  you  claim  the  liberty  of 
teaching.  Stop  ;  be  sincere  !  let  us  understand  the 
liberty  which  you  claim.  It  is  the  liberty  of  not 
teaching.  You  wish  us  to  give  you  the  people  to 
instruct.  Very  well.  Let  us  see  your  pupils.  Let 
us  see  those  you  have  produced.  What  have  you 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  251 

done  for  Italy?  What  have  you  done  for  Spain? 
For  centuries  you  have  kept  in  your  hands,  at  your 
discretion,  at  your  schools,  these  two  great  nations, 
illustrious  among  the  illustrious.  What  have  you 
done  for  them?  I  shall  tell  you.  Thanks  to  you, 
Italy,  whose  name  no  man  who  thinks  can  any 
longer  pronounce  without  inexpressible  filial  emotions 
—  Italy,  mother  of  genius  and  of  nations,  which  has 
spread  abroad,  over  all  the  universe,  all  the  most 
brilliant  marvels  of  poetry  and  the  arts,  —  Italy, 
which  has  taught  mankind  to  read,  now  knows  not 
how  to  read  !  Yes,  Italy  is,  of  all  the  states  of 
Europe,  that  where  the  smallest  number  know  howto 
read. 

“Spain,  magnificently  endowed  Spain,  which 
received  from  the  Romans  her  first  civilization  ;  from 
the  Arabs  her  second  civilization  ;  from  Providence, 
and  in  spite  of  you,  a  world,  America  —  Spain, 
thanks  to  you,  a  yoke  of  stupor,  which  is  a  yoke  of 
degradation  and  decay,  —  Spain  has  lost  the  secret 
power  which  it  had  from  the  Romans  ;  this  genius  of 
art  which  it  had  from  the  Arabs  ;  this  world  which  it 
had  from  God  ;  and  in  exchange  for  all  that  you  have 
made  it  lose,  it  has  received  from  you  the  Inquisi¬ 
tion  —  the  Inquisition  which  certain  men  of  the  party 
try  to-day  to  re-establish ;  which  has  burned  on  the 
funeral-pile  millions  of  men;  the  Inquisition,  which 
disinterred  the  dead  to  burn  them  as  heretics  ;  which 
declared  the  children  of  heretics  infamous  and  incap¬ 
able  of  any  public  honors,  excepting  only  those  who 
shall  have  denounced  their  fathers  ;  the  Inquisition, 


252 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


which,  while  I  speak,  still  holds  in  the  Papal  library 
the  manuscripts  of  Galileo,  sealed  under  the  Papal 
signet.  These  are  your  master-pieces.  This  fire 
which  we  call  Italy  you  have  extinguished.  This 
Colossus  that  we  call  Spain  you  have  undermined  — 
the  one  in  ashes,  the  other  in  ruins.  This  is  what 
you  have  done  for  two  great  nations. 

“  What  do  you  wish  to  do  for  France?  Stop  !  You 
have  just  come  from  Pome.  I  congratulate  you ; 
you  have  had  tine  success  there.  You  come  from 
gagging  the  Roman  people,  and  now  you  wish  to 
gag  the  French  people.  I  understand.  This  attempt 
is  still  more  fine  :  but  take  care,  it  is  dangerous. 
France  is  a  lion,  and  is  alive.” 

This  closing  sentence  I  quoted  to  you  last  Sab¬ 
bath.  Freeman  of  America  !  here  is  the  exchange 
which  Pome  would  make  for  your  public  schools. 
The  Constitution  proscribed,  the  Bible  banished, 
history  made  to  speak  falsely  under  the  command  of 
the  Pope  ;  multitudes  of  men  that  know  not  how 
to  read,  other  multitudes  made  criminals  for  lack  of 
instruction,  other  multitudes  made  paupers  by  the 
greed  of  the  hierarchy.  This  is  what  Pome  offers 
to  America.  O,  men  and  brothers  !  if  you  be  men, 
before  you  lose  what  your  fathers  bought  with  their 
blood,  by  your  ballots,  by  your  pulpits,  by  your 
newspapers,  by  your  hope  for  America  and  your 
love  of  mankind,  I  charge  you  think,  act  and  strike 
for  your  country’s  intelligence,  prosperity  and  virtue. 


Sermon  El. 


THE  MORALITY  WHICH  ROMANISM  WOULD  TEACH 

AMERICAN  YOUTH. 

Our  subject  to-night  is  the  morality  which  Roman¬ 
ism  would  teach  American  youth.  The  subject  of 
next  Sunday  evening  will  be  a  continuation  of  this, 
in  a  somewhat  different  way.  You  will  find  the 
texts,  first  in  the  19th  Psalm,  the  7th  verse  :  “  The 
law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul.” 
The  second  passage,  Matthew  5  :  17,  is  a  confirma¬ 
tion  and  corroboration  of  this  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ :  “  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law  or  the  prophets  ;  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to 
fulfil.”  For  the  sake  of  condensation  in  preliminary 
statements,  and  in  order  to  reach  most  directly  the 
facts  which  bear  on  Romanism,  I  will  beg  you  to 
excuse  me  for  live  minutes  while  I  read  the  propo¬ 
sitions  which  lay  the  foundation  of  the  discourse. 

The  perfection  of  God’s  law  for  the  government  of 
physical  nature  in  man,  or  elsewhere,  is  not  greater 
than  its  perfection  as  relates  to  the  rules  of  conduct 
which  are  commonly  called  morals.  The  law  of 
God,  which  is  perfect  m  the  eye  of  the  Psalmist,  is 
not  merely  the  law  of  physical  creation,  which  needs 
no  amendment,  but  also  the  law  of  moral  conduct. 


254 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


which  cannot  be  tampered  with  without  doing  great 
injury  to  man  and  to  society.  The  system  of  perfect 
human  conduct  which  is  embodied  in  the  Bible,  is, 
in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  most  concisely 
expressed  in  the  moral  law  of  the  Ten  Command¬ 
ments,  which  code  has  frequently  been  the  subject  of 
our  careful  study  and  of  our  emphatic  commenda¬ 
tion.  The  law  of  the  Ten  Commandments  is 
repeated  in  every  particular  in  the  Christian  sys¬ 
tem  as  developed  in  the  New  Testament,  since  our 
Lord  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil ;  and  He 
expressly  names  and  sanctions  severally,  nearly  every 
one  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  giving  them  a 
broader,  a  deeper,  and  stronger  meaning. 

Any  system  for  human  government  must  minister 
to  and  conserve  morality ;  else,  whatever  its  other 
good  qualities,  it  is  deserving  only  of  denunciation 
on  the  part  of  good  men.  For  example  :  a  piratical 
colony  might  exhibit  bravery,  and  display  remark¬ 
able  obedience  to  its  chief,  and  might  be  enviably 
rich,  as  the  result  of  an  evil  conspiracy  against  the 
property  of  other  men.  But  such  a  band  cannot 
be  commended  for  their  good  qualities,  because  of  the 
essential  immorality  of  their  purpose  and  of  their 
society. 

Especially,  any  system  of  religion,  in  order  to 
substantiate  a  claim  to  divine  origin,  must  be  justi¬ 
fied  or  condemned  by  what  it  exacts  and  produces  in 
moral  conduct.  A  good  religion  cannot  produce, 
teach,  nor  sanction  a  bad  morality  ;  and  I  say  this,  in 
order  that  those  who  seek,  and  perhaps  find,  in 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


25  5* 


other  religions  than  the  true  Christian  religion  some 
excellence,  may  understand  that  such  religion  must 
be  subjected  to  a  moral  test,  and  that  if  its  morals 
are  not  consistent  with  the  highest  welfare  of  man, 
the  religion  is  impeached  at  the  outset  as  not  being 
from  God.  This  test  is  especially  justified  concern¬ 
ing  any  system  professing  to  call  itself  Christianity. 
Any  religion  which  theoretically  and  practically 
debases  morality,  would,  by  that,  be  proven  false 
and  unchristian,  and  should  not  be  disseminated.  If  a 
religion  calling  itself  Christianity  violates  domestic 
sanctity,  blasphemes  God,  encourages  invasion  of 
property-rights,  takes  human  life  without  sanction 
of  the  principles  of  justice,  it  is  not  and  cannot  be 
a  Biblical  or  Christian  system  of  faith.  Any  religion 
which  degrades  man  in  this  world,  cannot  guide  him 
to  the  heavenly  world,  nor  is  there  anything  in  the 
system  of  Christianity  to  suggest  that,  out  of  a  bad 
morality  in  a  present  religion,  a  man  shall  be  evolved 
into  a  pure  character  in  the  heavenly  life. 

Proposing  to  apply  this  test  to  Romanism,  in  order 
to  clear  your  minds  of  uncertainty,  let  me  state  two 
or  three  preliminary  propositions  :  1.  The  immor¬ 

ality  of  a  few  members  of  any  church  cannot  discredit 
it,  nor  can  such  evil-doing  discredit  their  creed,  pro¬ 
vided  it  be  shown  that  such  immorality  is  contrary  to 
their  creed  and  theory,  and  in  practice  is  discounte¬ 
nanced  also  by  the  church.  This  is  a  rule  to  apply 
widely  and  always.  It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that 
there  is  no  religion  however  good,  no  form  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  however  pure,  which  has  so  purified  all  its 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


256 


\ 


professed  adherents  that  there  shall  be  no  hypocrites 
among  them ;  but  if  the  creed  and  the  system 
denounced,  opposed  and  resisted  all  immorality,  it 
cannot  justly  be  held  responsible  for  that  immorality. 
Even  the  fall  of  ministers  into  grievous  sin,  does 
not  discredit  the  system  of  religion  which  they  teach, 
provided  that  system  of  religion  and  that  church  sus¬ 
pend  their  function,  discipline  them,  and  forbid 
them  to  exercise  the  calling  which  they  have  dis¬ 
graced.  I  do  not  infer,  if  some  Roman  Catholic 
priests,  or  bishops,  or  popes  are  bad,  therefore  the 
whole  system  is  bad ;  for  such  inference  would 
impeach  Protestantism  also,  and  would  be  manifestly 
unfair  and  untruthful.  2.  Moreover,  there  may  be 
portions  of  a  church’s  history  not  consistent  with  its 
highest  and  best  understanding1  of  divine  truth.  A 
church  may,  under  unfortunate  conditions,  have  an 
incorrect  idea  of  what  is  right  and  wrong.  I  do  not 
think  that  the  early  Puritan  church  as  such,  can  be 
held  responsible,  as  a  whole,  for  the  persecution  and 
hanging  of  people  called  witches  ;  but,  if  you  choose 
to  hold  the  entire  church  responsible,  we  are  glad 
that  at  the  present  time,  and  for  a  very  long  period 
of  time,  all  these  barbarisms  have  been  repudiated 
and  denounced.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  as  a  whole,  should  not  perhaps  be 
discredited  by  the  Inquisition  of  the  Middle  Ages,  if 
they  had  since  and  now  repudiated  it.  Rut  the 
impeachment  we  bring  against  the  Romish  Church  is, 
that  it  has  never,  in  the  slightest  degree,  officially 
denounced  the  Inquisition,  and  that  it  sanctions, 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


257 


defends  and  recommends  it  to-day.  So  Romanism 
takes  and  deserves  as  a  system  the  whole  responsi¬ 
bility  of  the  Inquisition. 

The  whole  Ten  Commandments  are  moral  law,  one 
as  much  as  another.  The  first,  second  and  third 
are  principles  more  nearly  relating  to  religion. 
The  fourth  is  just  as  truly  a  principle  toward  God, 
while  it  relates  also  to  the  wants  of  man  in  the  phy¬ 
sical  and  visible  world,  because  it  seeks  to  give  him 
a  day  of  rest.  The  remaining  six  commandments 
relate  to  human  society  :  the  fifth  to  the  family,  as 
also  the  seventh  ;  the  sixth  to  the  sanctity  of  the  per¬ 
son  and  life ;  the  eighth  to  the  rights  of  property ; 
the  ninth  to  truth  in  human  intercourse  ;  the  tenth 
to  the  disposition  of  the  heart  in  regard  to  selfishness. 
Some  of  these  commands  are  so  related  to  God  and 
to  man,  that  while  essential  to  morality,  they  cannot 
wisely  be  made  the  subjects  of  statutory  legislation. 

For  instance,  experience  proves  that  it  would  not 
be  wise  for  us  to  legislate  that  a  man  should  not  wor¬ 
ship  an  idol,  if  he  desired  to ;  because  that  would 
trench  upon  the  province  of  his  conscience  and  relig¬ 
ion.  Nor  would  it  be  exactly  wise  for  us,  in  the  case 
of  every  man  who  swears  a  profane  oath,  to  shut  him 
up  in  prison  ;  much  as  the  wickedness  of  the  act 
shows  how  unfit  he  is  for  human  society. 

But  in  relation  to  the  commandments  affecting  the 
integrity  of  the  family  ;  as,  for  instance,  the  seventh 
commandment,  “  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  in 
relation  to  the  commandments  affecting  property, 
rights, “  Thou  shalt  not  steal ;  ”  the  protection  of  the 


258 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


person,  “Thou  shnlt  not  kill ;  ”  in  matters  of  truth  and 
honesty,  “Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  ;  ”  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  these,  society  could  not  exist  unless  there 
there  was  legislation  against  the  violation  of  the  law 
of  God  in  these  special  particulars.  The  violation 
of  these  last  commandments  we  call  immorality;  the 
keeping  of  these  commandments  we  call  morality. 
In  my  next  discourse,  I  shall  speak  of  Rome  in  its 
relation  to  the  higher  morality,  that  is,  the  first 
four  commandments;  in  this,  of  Rome  in  reference 
to  the  common  morality ;  that  is,  morality  that 
relates  to  the  integrity  of  the  family,  the  rights 
of  property,  the  protection  of  the  person,  and 
to  truth  and  honesty  in  the  intercourse  of  man 
with  man.  What,  then,  is  the  relation  of 
Romanism  to  the  law  of  property?  What  is  its  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  law  of  family?  What  is  its  relation  to 
the  law  for  the  protection  of  human  life?  And  what 
its  relation  to  each  of  the  five  commandments  of  the 
second  table  of  the  law  ? 

I.  The  theory  in  detail  of  Romanism  is  immoral. 
Romanism,  by  her  accredited  theologians,  teaches 
the  violation  of  several  of  these  commandments  of 
the  moral  law.  Who  are  the  authorized  theolo¬ 
gians  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church?  I  answer, 
foremost  among  them  is  Peter  Dens,  who  was 
born  in  the  17th  century,  and  died  about  the 
year  1775.  Peter  Dens  has  received  the  sanction 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland  as 
a  body  ;  his  works  are  put  into  the  hands  of  the 
young  priests  to  be  studied  ;  the  questions  which  he 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


25fJ 


says  ought  to  be  asked  in  the  confessional  are  asked 
there.  He  is  the  theological  tutor  of  the  young 
Roman  Catholic  priests,  a  standard  authority.  2. 
Liguori,  an  Italian,  who  is  called  a  “  saint,” and  whose 
writings  are  similar  to  those  of  Dens,  is  also  an 
authority.  The  Congregation  of  Rites,  in  1803,  after 
an  examination  for  twenty  years  of  Liguori’s  works, 
decreed,  that  “in  all  the  writings  of  St.  Alphonsus 
Liguori,  there  is  not  a  single  word  that  can  justly  be 
found  fault  with.”  (Montagu’s  “  Sower  and  Virgin.”) 
His  “  Glories  of  Mary,”  in  1868,  was  heartily  com¬ 
mended  by  Cardinal  Manning.  3.  J.  P.  Gury, 
whose  Moral  Theology  is  on  sale  in  a  Boston  book¬ 
store,  (where  I  myself  saw  it),  and  who  has  written 
theological  works  similar  to  those  of  Dens  and  Liguori, 
is  also  an  authority,  and  his  work  was  published  in 
Ratesbon,  in  1874,  and  is  a  standard  among  Roman 
Catholics.  These,  and  many  others  who  might  be 
quoted,  who  stand  in  the  same  relations  to  Roman 
Catholic  teaching,  are  accredited  and  standard  theolo¬ 
gians.  Moreover,  1  call  you  to  notice  the  remarkable 
fact  in  regard  to  every  one  of  these  books,  that  none 
of  them  can  be  printed  in  the  English  language  ; 
because  the  laws  of  this  country  very  properly  forbid 
it.  I  can  give  a  very  striking  confirmation  of  that 
from  a  book  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  :  “The  cele¬ 
brated  work  of  Peter  Dens  contains  several  numbers, 
in  Vol.  IV,  upon  this  subject  (the  confessional),  with 
which  I  am  unwilling  to  soil  these  pages,  even  by 
the  insertion  of  the  Latin.  Several  years  ago,  in  the 
city  where  I  reside,  a  gentleman  read  and  translated 


.260 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


these  before  an  audience  where  there  were  no  ladies, 
and  an  honest  young  Roman  Catholic  layman  present 
was  so  shocked  that  he  caused  him  to  be  arrested  and 
carried  before  the  mayor  upon  a  charge  of  public  inde¬ 
cency.”  (That  is  the  statement  of  R.  W.  Thompson,' 
on  page  192  of  “The  Papacy  and  the  Civil  Power.”) 

You  will  remember  that,  when  a  Roman  Catholic 
finds  the  justification  of  his  conduct  in  the  writings 
of  one  of  their  theologians  or  fathers,  he  proceeds 
with  good  conscience  to  the  performance  of  acts 
which  they  justify.  The  theological  works  by  Protes¬ 
tant  Christianity  are  not  authoritative  in  any  such 
sense.  All  the  books  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
are  issued  by  the  authority  of  The  Sacred  Congrega¬ 
tion.  The  Sacred  Congregation  gives  its  assent  and 
seal  to  these  writings.  Every  man,  therefore, 
writing  under  the  assent  of  The  Sacred  Congregation 
of  the  Index,  stands  as  sanctioned  by  Rome,  and  Rome 
stands  as  sponsor  for  him. 

Now,  concerning  all  the  above  authorities,  Dens, 
Liguori,  Gury  and  others,  I  say,  they  sanction  lying, 
deceit,  perjury,  the  breaking  of  faith,  theft,  murder, 
and  so  present  and  excuse  adultery  as  to  make  it 
common  even  among  their  ecclesiastics.  The  first 
of  these  propositions,  which  I  shall  demonstrate  from 
their  own  words,  is  this  :  1.  That  theologians  of  Rome, 
and  therefore  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  sanction 
lying,  deceit  and  perjury.  Liguori,  whom  I  have 
already  named,  says  (  I  have  before  me  the  Latin 
text,  and  its  translation  also,  in  Chiniquy’s  “  Fifty 
Years  in  the  Church  of  Rome,”  chap,  xiii)  :  “  A  culprit 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


261 


or  a  witness  questioned  by  a  judge,  but  in  an  illegal 
manner”  (of  which  I  suppose  the  culprit  is  to  be  the 
judge)  “may  swear  that  he  knows  nothing  of  the 
crime  about  which  he  is  questioned,  although  he 
knows  it  well,  meaning  mentally,  that  he  knows  noth¬ 
ing  in  such  a  manner  as  to  answer.”  When  the  crime 
is  very  secret  and  unknown  to  all,  Liguori  says,  the 
culprit  or  the  witness  must  deny  it  under  oath.  Here 
are  his  own  words  :  “  He  may  swear  that  he  knows 
nothing,  when  he  knows  that  the  person  who  commit¬ 
ted  the  crime  committed  it  without  malice  ;  or  again, 
if  he  knows  the  crime,  but  secretly,  and  there  has 
been  no  scandal.  When  a  crime  is  well  concealed, 
the  witness,  and  even  the  criminal,  may,  and  even 
must,  swear  that  the  crime  has  never  been  committed. 
The  guilty  party  may  yet  do  likewise,  when  a  half 
proof  cannot  be  brought  against  him.”  Liguori  asks 
himself :  “If  one  accused,  legally  interrogated  by  a 
judge,  may  deny  his  crime  under  oath,  when  the 
confession  of  the  crime  might  cause  his  condem¬ 
nation,  and  be  disadvantageous  to  him?”  and  he 
answers:  “  It  is  altogether  probable  that  when  the 
accused  fears  a  sentence  of  death,  or  of  being  sent  to 
prison,  or  exiled,  he  may  deny  his  crime  under  oath, 
understanding  that  he  has  not  committed  this  crime 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  obliged  to  confess  it.”  “He 
who  has  sworn  to  keep  a  secret  is  not  obliged  to  keep 
his  oath,  if  any  consequential  injury  to  him  or  to 
others  is  thereby  caused.  If  anyone  has  sworn 
before  a  judge  to  keep  the  truth,  he  is  not  obliged  to 
say  secret  things.”  Liguori  asks  whether  a  woman. 


262 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


accused  of  the  crime  of  adultery,  which  she  has  really 
committed,  may  deny  it  under  oath?  He  answers  : 
44  Yes  :  provided  she  has  been  to  confess,  and  received 
the  absolution  ;  for  then,”  he  says,  44  the  sin  has  been 
pardoned,  and  has  really  ceased  to  exist.”  Liguori 
maintains  that  anyone  may  commit  a  minor  crime  in 
order  to  avoid  a  greater  crime.  He  says:  44It  is 
right  to  advise  any  one  to  commit  a  robbery  or  a 
fornication,  in  order  to  avoid  a  murder.” 

These  are  but  samples,  and  the  authority  which 
adduces  these,  being  perfectly  familiar  with  the 
theology  and  morality  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  says  : 
44 1  could  till  volumes  with  similar  statements.”  But 
this  is  not  all. 

A  Roman  Catholic,  according  to  this  authority, 
may  perjure  himself  to  conceal  his  faith.  And  here 
again  :  44  We  maybe  allowed  to  conceal  the  truth,  or 
disguise  it  under  ambiguous  or  equivocal  words  or 
signs,  for  a  just  cause,  and  when  there  is  no  neces¬ 
sity  to  confess  the  truth.  If  by  that  means  one  can 
rid  himself  of  dangerous  pursuits,  he  is  permitted  to 
use  it.  Wh  en  you  are  not  questioned  as  to  your 
faith,  you  are  not  only  allowed  to  conceal  it,  but  it 
is  often  more  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  interest  of 
your  neighbor.  If,  for  example,  you  are  among  a 
heretical  people,  you  can  do  more  good  by  conceal¬ 
ing  your  faith :  or  if,  by  declaring  it,  you  are  to 
cause  great  trouble,  or  death,  it  is  temerity  to 
expose  one’s  life.”  The  Pope  has  the  right  to  release 
from  all  oaths.  44  As  for  an  oath,  made  for  a  ofood 

7  O 

and  legitimate  object,  it  seems  that  there  should  be 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


263 


no  power  capable  of  annulling  it.  However,  when 
it  is  for  the  good  of  the  public,  a  matter  which  comes 
under  the  immediate  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  who 
has  the  supreme  power  over  the  Church,  the  Pope 
has  full  power  to  release  from  that  oath.”  Dens 
says  (in  “  Papacy  and  Civil  Power,”  note  to  p.  560  — 
I  read  you  this  verbatim,  because  I  want  you  to 
know  that  the  citations  are  exactly  correct)  :  “It 
has  undoubtedly  become  the  settled  law  of  the 
Roman  Church  that  the  Pope  may  dispense  with  any 
promissory  oath,  by  withdrawing  the  promise  or  pro¬ 
hibiting  its  performance.”  The  doctrine  is  thus 
laid  down  by  an  author  greatly  distinguished  in  the 
Church  for  his  learning.  In  answering  the  objection 
that  the  obligation  of  an  oath  is  of  natural  and  divine 
right,  and  therefore  that  it  cannot  cease  to  be  binding 
through  dispensation,  commutation  or  veto,  he  says  : 
“  The  consequence  is  denied  ;  because  through  dis¬ 
pensation,  etc.,  it  is  brought  about,  that  that  which 
was  included  under  the  oath,  by  withdrawing,  pro¬ 
hibiting,  etc.,  is  not  included  under  the  oath,  and  so 
there  is  nothing  done  contrary  to  the  oath.” 

Further,  the  Lateran  Council — and  the  Lateran 
Council  was,  like  the  Pope,  infallible, —  has  said: 
“  They  are  not  to  be  called  oaths,  but  rather  perjury, 
which  are  in  opposition  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church 
and  the  enactment  of  the  Holy  Fathers.”  Pope 
Innocent  XI.  sanctions  perjury  in  the  following 
words:  “If  any,  either  alone  or  before  others, 
whether  asked  or  of  his  own  accord,  or  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  sport  or  for  any  other  object,  swears  that  he 


264  Romanism  and  the  Republic . 

has  not  done  something  which  in  reality  he  has  done, 
by  understanding  within  himself  something  else 
which  he  has  not  done,  or  a  different  way  from  that 
in  which  he  has  done  it,  or  any  other  truth  that  is 
added,  he  does  not  really  lie,  nor  is  he  perjured.” 
That  these  rules  are  part  of  the  Jesuit  system  of 
“mental  reservation ’*  is  undoubted.  Sanchez,  one 
the  fathers,  says  :  “A  man  may  swear  that  he  never 
did  such  a  thing  (though  he  actually  did  it),  mean¬ 
ing  within  himself  that  he  did  not  do  so  on  a  certain 
day,  or  before  he  was  born,  or  understanding  any 
other  such  circumstances,  while  the  words  which  he 
employs  have  no  such  sense  as  would  discover  his 
meaning.”  The  reason  given  by  him,  and  Filiutius, 
another  father,  is,  that  “  it  is  the  intention  that  deter¬ 
mines  the  quality  of  the  action.”  “After  saying 
aloud,  4  I  swear  that  I  have  not  done  that,’  to  add,  in  a 
low  voice,  4  to-day  ’ ;  or  after  saying  aloud,  4 1  swear,’ 
to  interpose  in  a  whisper,  4  that  Isay,’  and  then  to  con¬ 
tinue  aloud,  4  that  I  have  done  that.’”  In  this,  the 
same  :  44  No  more  is  required  of  them  to  avoid  lying 
than  simply  to  say  that  they  have  not  done  what  they 
have  done  ;  provided  they  have  in  general  the  inten¬ 
tion  of  giving  to  their  language  the  sense  which  an 
able  man  would  give  to  it.”  And  Escobar,  another 
and  greater  of  the  Jesuit  fathers,  lays  down  the 
following  demoralizing  rule:  44  Promises  are  not 

O  O 

binding,  when  the  person  in  making  them  had  no 
intention  to  bind  himself.”  (“  Papacy  and  Civil 
Power,” page  607.) 

Do  you  wonder  that  Roman  Catholics  perjure 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


265 


themselves  in  our  courts?  Do  you  wonder  that 
Roman  Catholic  saloon-keepers,  who  constitute  nine- 
tenths  of  all  the  saloon-keepers,  will  swear  directly 
contrary  to  fact  in  the  courts  ?  That  is  the  theology 
of  their  Fathers,  of  their  Councils,  of  their  Bishops 
and  their  Priests  ;  and  pray  tell  me,  why  it  should  not 
be  the  practice  of  the  laity  also?  Do  you  wonder 
that  they  deny  history?  Do  you  wonder  that  now, 
on  one  hand,  we  have  Bishops  affirming  their  purpose 
to  destroy  our  public  schools  ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
Bishops  affirming  that  they  purpose  no  such  thing  ? 
Do  you  wonder  that  Roman  Catholics  cannot  endure 
the  truth  of  history,  and  that  they  falsify  everything 
which  goes  against  their  infallible  Church  ?  Do  you 
wonder  that  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor  broke  faith 
with  John  Huss,  who  had  come  to  the  Council  of 
Constance  under  promise  of  “  safe  conduct,”  and 
burned  him  to  death  ?  Do  wonder  that  the  Councils 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  have  accused  Popes 
of  perjury,  and  substantiated  by  proof  their  accusa¬ 
tion  ?  When  I  say  to  you  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  in  theory  favors  falsehood  ;  that  its  doctors, 
lawyers  and  chief  theologians  favor  falsehood,  lying, 
deceit  and  perjury;  I  only  ask  you,  if  you  can,  to 
believe  what  they  themselves  say  ;  for  Heaven  knows 
they  might  have  been  lying  when  they  said  this. 

For  instance,  to  take  the  matter  of  indulgences. 
William  Hogan,  who  was  for  many  years  a  priest  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  says,  on  the  17 2d  page 
of  his  book,  which  he  wrote  after  he  became  a  dis¬ 
tinguished  lawyer  in  the  southern  United  States  :  “  I 


266 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


pronounce  all  Roman  Catholic  Priests,  Bishops, 

Popes,  monks,  friars  and  nuns  to  be  the  most  delib¬ 
erate  and  wilful  set  of  liars  that  ever  infested  this  or 
any  other  country,  or  disgraced  the  name  of  religion. *’ 
So  says  a  man  who  was  a  priest,  who  lived  with 
them  and  knew  them,  and  who  abandoned  them,  and 
mive  us  the  result  of  his  observations.  4 4 1  have 
asserted,  and  continue  to  assert,  that  there  is  not  a 
Roman  Catholic  church,  chapel  or  house  of  worship 
in  any  Catholic  country  where  indulgences  are  not 
sold.  I  will  go  even  farther,  and  say,  that  there  is 
not  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  or  inquisitor  who  has 
denied  the  fact,  that  does  not  sell  indulgences  him¬ 
self.  And  yet  these  Priests  and  these  Bishops, —  these 
men  of  sin,  falsehood,  impiety,  barbarity  and  immor¬ 
ality, —  talk  of  morals  and  preach  morals  ;  while  in 
their  lives  and  their  practice  they  laugh  at  such 
ideas  as  morality. 

44  I  would  ask  all  or  any  of  them,  if  they  have  ever 
heard  mass  in  any  Catholic  Church  in  Dublin,  or  any 
other  city  in  Ireland,  without  hearing  published 
from  the  altar  a  notice,  in  the  following  words. 
4  Take  notice,  that  there  will  be  an  Indulgence  on 

- day,  in - church.  Confession  will  be  heard 

on - day.  Prepare,  those  who  wish  to  partake 

of  the  Indulgence. ’  I  have  published  hundreds 
of  such  notices  myself ;  and  any  American  who  may 
visit  Ireland,  or  any  other  Catholic  country,  and  has 
the  curiosity,  may  enter  the  Roman  Catholic  chapel 
aud  hear  these  notices  read ;  and  when  he  returns  to 
the  United  States  he  will  hear  the  Roman  Catholic 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


267 


priest  say  that  there  are  no  indulgences  sold  by  the 
Romish  Church.  Beware,  Americans  !  How  long 
will  you  be  the  dupes  of  popish  priests  ?  ”  (Hogan’s 
“  Popery,”  p.  172.)  And  yet  the  twelve  Protestant 
members  of  the  school  board  of  Boston,  because  of 
the  mild  statement  in  Swinton’s  History,  were  either 
so  ignorant  of  the  modes  and  wiles  of  Rome,  or  else 
were  so  culpably  negligent,  that  they  voted  at  Rome’s 
bidding  that  the  History  should  be  taken  out  of  the 
schools,  because  it  stated  mildly  what  every  man 
knows  to  be  true  who  knows  anything  about  Rome. 

But  the  indictment  goes  much  fartheV.  Only  the 
lapse  of  time,  which  lapses  so  rapidly,  prevents  me 
from  citing  J.  P.  Gury,  whom  I  have  already  spoken 
of  as  a  standard  theologian  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church;  who  in  detail,  on  the  same  points,  one  after 
another,  lays  down  rules  of  conduct  precisely  as 
damaging  and  as  immoral  as  those  that  I  have  already 
mentioned.*  There  is  no  misunderstandino*  them  ; 
they  directly  inculcate  lying,  perjury,  deceit  and 
falsehood  as  a  part  of  the  practical  morality  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  Do  not  understand  me 
as  saying  that  every  Roman  Catholic  is  a  liar.  Not 
by  any  means  !  I  do  not  believe  it !  I  do  say  that 
every  Roman  Catholic  may  perjure  himself  and  not 
come  under  the  censure  of  his  Church.  That  is  what 
I  say,  and  that  you  know  to  be  true. 

2.  I  stated  to  you  that  stealing  is  encouraged  ; 
and  I  quote  again  from  Liguori,  the  distinguished 

♦This  work  has  been  translated  from  the  French  of  Paul  Bert, 
and  is  on  sale  by  the  Publisher  of  this  book.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  exposing  books  of  the  times.  Its  price  is  $1.50. 


268 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


authority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Let  me 
read  to  you  exactly  what  he  says,  as  follows : 
“  A  servant  has  the  right  to  rob  his  master,  a  child 
his  father,  and  a  poor  man  the  rich.”  The  Salmantes 
say  that  a  servant  may,  according  to  his  own  judg¬ 
ment,  pay  himself  with  his  own  hands,  more  than 
was  agreed  upon  as  a  salary  for  his  own  work,  if  he 
finds  that  he  deserves  a  larger  salary  ;  “  and,”  says 
Liguori,  “this  doctrine  appears  just  to  me.”  “The 
poor  man  who  has  concealed  the  goods  and  effects  of 
which  he  is  in  need,  may  swear  that  he  has  nothing.” 
(Lying  and  stealing  both.)  “In  like  manner  an 
heir,  who,  without  taking  an  inventory,  conceals  his 
goods,  when  it  is  not  the  goods  mortgaged  for  a  debt, 
may  swear  that  he  has  concealed  nothing,  under¬ 
standing  the  goods  with  which  he  was  to  pay.”  There 
are  many  opinions  about  the  amount  which  may  be 
stolen  to  constitute  a  mortal  sin.  “  Nevar  has  said, 
too  scrupulously,  that  to  steal  a  half  piece  of  gold  is 
a  mortal  sin  :  while  others,  too  lax,  hold  that  to  steal 
less  than  ten  pieces  of  gold  cannot  be  a  serious  sin. 
But  Tol,  Mech,  Less,  etc.,  have  more  wisely  ruled, 
that  to  steal  two  pieces  of  gold  constitutes  a  mortal 
sin.”  Is  it  a  crime  to  steal  a  small  piece  of  a  relic? 
(Liguori  now)  :  “  There  is  no  doubt  of  its  being  a  sin 
in  the  district  of  Rome ;  since  Clement  VII.  and  . 
Paul  V.  have  excommunicated  those  who  have  com¬ 
mitted  such  thefts. 

“  But  this  theft  is  not  a  serious  thing  when  com¬ 
mitted  outside  the  district  of  Rome  ;  unless  it  be  a 
very  rare  and  precious  relic ;  as  the  wood  of  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic .  269 

Holy  Cross,  or  some  of  the  hair  of  the  Virgin  Mary.” 
Once  more  :  “If  any  one  steals  small  sums  at  differ¬ 
ent  times,  either  from  the  same  or  from  different 
persons,  not  having  the  intention  of  stealing  large 
sums,  nor  of  causing  a  great  damage,  his  sin  is  not 
mortal ;  particularly  if  the  thief  is  poor,  and  he  has 
the  intention  to  give  back  what  he  has  stolen.  If 
several  persons  steal  from  the  same  master,  in  small 
quantities,  each  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  commit 
a  mortal  sin,  though  each  one  knows  that  all  these 
little  thefts  together  cause  a  considerable  damage  to 
their  master,  yet  no  one  of  them  commits  a  mortal 
sin,  even  when  they  steal  at  the  same  time.”  (Still, 
if  there  are  enough  of  them,  they  could  take  about 
all  a  man  has,  according  to  that.  There  is  more  of 
this.)  Liguori,  in  speaking  of  children  who  steal 
from  their  parents,  says:  “  Silas,  cited  by  Croix, 
maintains  that  a  son  does  not  commit  a  mortal  sin 
when  he  steals  only  twenty  or  thirty  pieces  of  gold 
from  a  father  who  has  an  income  of  150  pieces  of 
gold,”  —  you  must  regulate  it  according  to  what  your 
father  has,  —  “  and  Lugo  approves  of  that  doctrine. 
Less,  and  other  theologians  say,  that  it  is  not  a  mortal 
sin  for  a  child  to  steal  two  or  three  pieces  of  gold 
from  a  rich  father.”  I  wonder  if  they  teach  that  in 
their  Sunday  schools  ?  “  Bannez  maintains,  that  to 

commit  a  mortal  sin  a  child  must  steal  not  less  than 
fifty  piece  of  gold  from  a  rich  father ;  but  Lacroix 
rejects  that  doctrine,  except  the  father  is  a  prince.” 
(Chiniquy  “Fifty  Years,”  chapter  xiii).  Great 
advantage  in  having  a  prince  for  a  father;  you  can 
steal  all  you  have  a  mind  to  ! 


270 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Now,  when  your  Roman  Catholic  servant-girl  takes 
out  of  your  house  sundry  articles  of  food  or  clothing, 
for  needy  persons  that  are  related  to  her,  as  cousins 
of  one  degree  or  another,  you  see  that  she  is  acting 
in  harmony  with  the  definitions  and  directions  of  the 
sanctioned  theologians  and  saints  of  Rome.  More- 

^  O 

over,  the  despoiling  of  heretics  has  been,  in  theory 
and  in  practice,  the  rule  of  that  church.  Always. 
Now,  you  understand  me.  I  do  not  say  that  every 
Roman  Catholic  is  dishonest :  far  from  it.  I  do 
not  say  that  every  priest  teaches  this  outrageous  and 
thievish  doctrine.  But  I  do  say,  that  the  theologians 
of  Rome,  who  have  the  sanction  of  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  Church  herself,  and  who  teach  by  that  sanction 
infallible  doctrine,  do  countenance  and  encourage 
and  excuse  theft  and  stealing.  You  may  jud^e  of 
the  consequences  of  such  teaching. 

They  also  sanction  and  authorize  murder,  the 
murder  of  heretics.  For  example,  let  me  quote  you 
their  exact  language  ;  for  what  they  say  is  so  much 
w orse  than  anything  that  I  could  say  if  I  tried  to 
quote  its  substance,  that  I  like  to  read  it  exactly  as 
they  state  it.  Dens  says,  in  his  “Theologica  Moralis 
“A  man  who  has  been  excommunicated  by  the  Pope 
may  be  killed  anywhere,  as  Escobar  and  Deaux  teach  ; 
because  the  Pope  has  an  indirect  jurisdiction  over 
the  whole  world,  even  in  temporal  things,  as  all  the 
Catholics  maintain,  and  as  Suarez  proves  against  the 
King  of  England.”  An  excommunicated  man  may 
be  killed  anywhere  ;  and  we  are  all  excommunicated, 
you  understand.  Only  last  week,  T  read  you  the 
Papal  bull  excommunicating  all  heretics. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


271 


Lord  Acton,  one  of  the  Roman  Catholic  peers  of 
England,  reproaching  her  bloody  and  anti-social  laws 
to  his  own  church,  wrote :  “Pope  Gregory  VII. 
decided  it  was  no  murder  to  kill  excommunicated 
persons.”  This  is  taken  from  the  London  Times , 
July  26,  1872,  written  by  Lord  Acton.  Gregory 
says  :  “  This  rule  was  incorporated  in  the  canon  law. 
During  the  revision  of  the  code,  which  took  place  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  and  which  produced  a  whole 
volume  of  corrections,  the  passage  was  allowed  to 
stand.  It  appears  in  every  reprint  ot  the  Corpus 
Juris.  It  has  been  for  700  years,  and  continues  to 
be,  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  law.  Far  from  being  a 
dead  letter,  it  obtained  a  new  application  in  the  days 
of  the  Inquisition;  and  one  of  the  later  Popes  has 
declared,  that  the  murder  of  a  Protestant  is  so  good  a 
deed  that  it  atones,  and  more  than  atones,  for  the 
murder  of  a  Catholic.”  That  is  to  say,  according  to 
this  infallible  Pope,  if  a  man  has  murdered  a  Roman 
Catholic,  he  may  expiate  the  deed  by  murdering  an 
excommunicated  person ;  and  all  Protestants  are 
excommunicated.  This  is  their  own  language. 

In  the  last  Council  of  the  Vatican,  has  the  Church 
of  Rome  expressed  any  regret  for  having  promul¬ 
gated  and  executed  such  bloody  laws?  No!  On 
the  contrary,  she  has  anathematized  all  those  who 
think  or  say  that  she  was  wrong  when  she  deluged 
the  world  with  the  blood  of  the  millions  she  ordered 
to  be  slaughtered  to  quench  her  thirst  for  blood  ; 
she  positively  said  that  she  had  a  right  to  punish 
those  heretics  by  torture  and  death.  Further  than 


272  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

that :  They  claim  the  right  to  murder  all  rulers 
whom  they  consider  apostates ;  and  has  it  ever  been 
brought  to  your  attention  (I  speak  of  it  as  a  curios¬ 
ity  only),  that  every  person  who  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  assassination  of  Abraham  Lincoln  was  a 
Roman  Catholic?  —  that  John  Wilkes  Booth  was  a 
Roman  Catholic ;  Payne  and  Atseroth,  also  Dr. 
Nudd,  who  dressed  his  leg ;  Garrett,  in  whose 
premises  he  was  killed ;  also,  that  Harold  was  a 
Roman  Catholic ;  Mrs.  Suratt  and  her  son  were 
Roman  Catholics ;  their  house  was  the  head-quarters 
for  Roman  Catholics  and  for  the  Jesuit  priests.  All 
this  was  brought  out  before  the  military  tribunal 
which  condemned  some  of  them  to  death.  As  early 
as  1861,  certain  political  partisan  papers  of  this  coun¬ 
try  were  filled  with  statements  that  Abraham  Lincoln 
was  an  apostate,  who  had  been  born  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  and  left  it.  This  was  false ;  but 
was  evidently  intended  to  arouse  fanatical  hate 
against  Lincoln  as  an  apostate.  I  .do  not  say  that 
Rome  planned  that  murder  ;  but  remember,  that  when 
John  Suratt  fled  from  Washington  he  was  taken 
charge  of  by  Jesuits,  and  under  a  Jesuit  convoy  was 
carried  to  France.  If  they  murdered  Abraham 
Lincoln,  they  acted  in  harmony  with  the  authority  of 
their  theologians. 

Repentant  heretics,  we  are  told  by  this  same 
standard  of  morality,  cannot  have  their  lives  spared, 
although  they  have  repented.  Let  me  give  you  the 
words:  “Though  the  heretics  who  repent  must 
always  be  accepted  to  penance,  as  often  as  they  have 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


273 


fallen,  they  must  not  in  consequence  of  that  always 
be  permitted  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  this  life.  When 
they  fall  again  they  are  admitted  to  repent ;  but  the 
sentence  of  death  must  not  bj  removed.”  That  is 
what  they  practised  in  the  Inquisition.  When  here¬ 
tics  recanted  Protestant  doctrine,  they  were,  in 
repeated  instances,  slain,  by  the  orders  of  the  Inquis¬ 
itors.  The  Lateran  Council  has  given  us  a  declara¬ 
tion  in  favor  of  the  extermination  of  heretics  in  lan¬ 
guage  like  this:  “  Catholics  who  shall  assume  the 
cross  for  the  extermination  of  heretics,  shall  enjoy  the 
same  indulgences  and  be  protected  by  the  same 
privileges  as  are  granted  to  those  who  go  to  the  help 
of  the  Holy  Land.  We  decree,  further,  that  all  who 
may  have  dealings  with  heretics,  and  especially  such 
as  receive,  defend  or  encourage  them,  shall  be 
excommunicated.  He  shall  not  be  eligible  to  any 
public  office.  He  shall  not  be  admitted  as  a  witness. 
He  shall  neither  have  the  power  to  bequeath  his  pro¬ 
perty  by  will,  nor  to  succeed  to  any  inheritance.” 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  we  have  shown, 
has  been  a  bloody  church.  The  Inquisition,  whose 
history  we  have  in  the  language  of  Llorente,  him¬ 
self  secretary  of  the  Inquisition,-— the  Inquisition 
has  been  recommended,  and  I  have  read  the  recom¬ 
mendation  in  your  hearing,  by  Segur,  whose  books 
are  on  sale  in  Boston  ;  by  LaMaistre,  whose  books 
have  been  on  sale  in  Boston  ;  by  Fredet,  whose  his¬ 
tory  bears  the  mark  1886,  published  in  Baltimore  by 
John  Murphy. 

This  Church  is  a  church  that  is  red  with  the  blood 


274 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


of  the  saints  ;  and  as  I  have  said  to  you  here  before, 
if  one  day  the  priests  and  bishops  of  Rome  should 
say  to  you,  We  are  your  brothers,  and  will  do  nothing 
to  your  injury  ;  and  the  next  day  they  should  strike 
you  dead ;  the}^  will  do  exactly  what  the  Romish 
Church,  and  Charles  IX.,  and  Catherine  de  Medici, 
his  mother,  did  to  Admiral  Coligny,  and  to  seventy 
thousand  Protestants,  at  the  massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew.  They  may  profess  the  utmost  friend¬ 
ship  ;  but  they  violate  neither  their  theology  nor 
their  principles  when  they  take  the  lives  of  heretics. 

It  may  be  that  it  has  not  come  to  your  attention 
that  Roman  Catholics  are  forming  and  drilling  mili¬ 
tary  companies  here  in  America,  composed  entirely 
of  their  own  adherents.  I  do  not  know  what  they 
mean  by  it,  and  I  do  not  care.  There  are  other  men 
who  can  handle  a  gun  in  America,  when  necessary,  to 
resist  treason  and  tyranny.  I  touch  now  upon  deli¬ 
cate  ground,  and  shall  be  very  brief,  for  I  reserve  a 
considerable  part  of  this  to  another  discourse,  when 
I  shall  not  have  a  mixed  audience  present. 

4.  The  crime  of  adultery  has  the  sanction  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  this  wise.  Now  listen 
closely.  They  deny  all  civil  and  Christian  marriage 
to  be  true  and  lawful  marriage  when  not  performed 
within  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  Pope  Pius 
IX.  calls  it  “  filthy  concubinage .”  They  have  divided 
between  a  husband  and  wife  in  England  —  I  quote 
from  Mr.  Gladstone  in  his  preface  to  “  V aticanism  ” — 
because  they  were  not  married  by  a  Romish  priest ; 
this  man  having  embraced  the  Romish  faith  for  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


275 


sake  of  setting;  rid  of  a  noble  and  excellent  wile. 
Mr.  Gladstone  calls  attention  to  the  fact,  and  wonders 
that  the  menace  to  human  society  contained  in  the 
act  had  not  been  taken  more  account  of  in  England. 
The  history  of  a  celibate  priesthood,  which  fills  this 
remarkable  volume  now  in  my  hand,  “  History  of 
Sacerdotal  Celibacy,”  by  H.  C.  Lea,  is  written  by  one 
of  the  most  judicially  minded  historians  that  ever  wrote 
history.  The  work  of  six  hundred  and  fifty  pages 
is  full  of  facts,  stated  in  the  most  judicial  and  impar¬ 
tial  manner,  by  a  man  who  has  no  case  to  make  out, 
but  has  simply  gone  to  the  fountain-heads  of  infor¬ 
mation  and  learned  what  the  state  of  that  celibate 
clergy  has  been  ever  since  it  originated.  And 
though  the  book  is  most  elevated  in  style  and  exalted 
in  motive  ;  though  it  is  not  in  any  sense  obscene  ; 
though  it  might  be  read  by  any  man,  woman  or 
child  without  a  blush  ;  there  is  more  recorded  vileness 
in  that  book,  more  history  and  record  of  abomination, 
than  I  have  ever  found  in  any  book  ;  and  the  author¬ 
ities  for  its  statements  are  almost  invariably  Roman 
Catholics.  If  the  system  makes  necessary  such  a 
record,  alas  for  the  seventh  commandment ;  or  rather, 
alas  for  the  system  of  Romanism.  I  have  to  limit 
this  to  private  discussion  ;  but  as  I  pass  it,  I  confess 
to  you,  my  friends,  that  if  I  should  tell  you  the  tithe 
of  what  I  have  read  in  that  book,  giving  names, 
dates  and  places,  from  the  earliest  times  until  now, 
you  would  be  inclined  to  drive  me  from  this  house  ; 
and  yet,  you  would  know  that  my  statements  were 
true. 


276 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


I  pass  now  from  this  portion  of  my  subject, 
and  call  your  attention  to  another  portion  that  is 
equally  interesting,  and  quite  as  conclusive.  I  have 
given  you  already  their  rules  of  conduct  as  stated  in 
their  theologians,  and  bring  now  a  broader  impeach¬ 
ment.  As  a  system,  Romanism  leads  directly  to 
immorality.  The  framers  of  the  system  favored  the 
violation  of  the  moral  law.  I  propose  to  demon¬ 
strate  that  in  brief  words.  Among  the  doctrines  and 
dogmas  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  this,  that 
the  Pope  maybe  never  so  vicious,  and  still  the  infal¬ 
lible  head  of  the  Church  as  vicar  of  Christ,  deserv¬ 
ing  the  most  exalted  names  and  titles.  On  the  511th 
page  of  Fredet’s  History  —  I  quoted  that  last  week  — 
it  is  explicitly  stated  that,  whatever  the  character 
of  a  Pope,  whether  he  be  a  Eugenius,  a  Gregory,  a 
Benedict  VIII. ,  or  an  Alexander  VI.,  or  whatever 
monster  of  crime  he  may  be,  he  is  equally  infallible 
in  his  legislation  and  leadership  as  head  of  the 
Church.  You  remember  that  fact  was  read  to  you 
from  their  standard  history.  Now,  notice  further, 
that  the  same  rule  applies  to  bishops  and  priests. 
Every  Archbishop,  Cardinal,  Bishop,  or  Priest  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  according  to  the  law  of  that 
church,  may  be  a  vile,  immoral  and  criminal  man,  and 
still  exercise  all  his  functions.  No  matter  what  he 
has  done,  it  does  not  vitiate  the  sacraments  which  he 
performs. 

I  will  read  it  to  you  in  the  exact  phraseology  of  the 
Roman  Catholics  themselves,  and  show  you  their 
position.  On  the  173d  page  of  this  work  of  R.  W. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


277 


Thompson,  there  is  a  quotation  from  the  Catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent.  (The  Council  of  Trent  is 
probably  the  most  esteemed  of  all  the  councils  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.)  Listen  to  the  language. 
Referring  to  such  as  are  excluded  from  the  pale  of  the 
Church,  it  is  here  said  (Ibid.,  pp.  73-4)  :  “Were 
even  the  lives  of  her  ministers  debased  by  crime, 
they  are  still  within  her  pale,  and,  therefore,  lose 
none  of  the  power  with  which  her  ministry  invest 
them”  That  is  to  say,  a  man  may  be  never  so  bad 
a  man,  and  may  be  a  good  Pope,  giving  infallible 
doctrine  and  law  to  the  Church  ;  a  good  bishop,  a 
good  priest,  confessing  and  absolving  men,  women 
and  children,  although,  as  they  say,  he  be  a  vile 
man,  and  guilty  of  crime. 

Now,  if  a  cleric  may  be  a  good  pope,  bishop,  or 
priest,  and  be  a  bad  man,  why  should  not  a  layman 
be  a  good  Catholic  and  still  be  a  bad  man  f  For  a 
layman  may  be  made  a  priest  to-morrow  ;  it  is  in  the 
power  of  the  church  to  do  so.  And  I  know  the  intel¬ 
ligence  of  Roman  Catholics  well  enough  to  know  that 
when  they  understand  that  the  priest  may  be  a  good 
priest  and  a  bad  man,  they  have  sense  enough  to  infer 
that  a  Roman  Catholic  may  be  a  gocd  Catholic  and  a 
bad  man  ;  and  their  reasoning  is  just  as  good  and 
their  conclusion  is  just  as  sound  as  that  of  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Trent  in  reference  to  the  priests.  I  ask  you,  if 
such  doctrine  does  not  naturally  lead  to  all  manner 
of  immorality  ?  If  a  man  may  be  a  good  Catholic  and 
a  bad  Christian,  may  be  a  good  priest  and  a  villain, 
where  is  the  limit  that  the  church  sets  to  immorality 
as  excluding  men  from  her  sacraments  ? 


278 


Romanism  and  the  Republic, 


Moreover,  this  system  of  casuistry,  by  which  the 
words  and  commandments  of  men  are  exalted,  equal 
to  or  above  the  word  of  God,  creates  confusion,  and 
immorality  results.  I  cannot  cite  to  you  all  the 
demonstrations  of  this.  Here  is  one.  Pope  Sixtus 
Y.  brought  out  a  translation  of  the  Vulgate  Bible 
that  abounded  in  errors.  There  was  neither  scholar¬ 
ship  nor  sense  in  it.  It  was  so  scandalously  bad  that, 
although  he  pronounced  an  infallible  anathema  on  all 
who  did  not  receive  it,  Bellarmine,  the  famous  Jesuit 
undertook  to  set  it  right,  and  when  Bellarmine  under¬ 
took  to  set  it  right  by  the  help  of  another  Pope,  he 
went  on  to  say  that  it  had  not  been  published,  that 
Pope  Sixtus  had  not  intended  to  make  it  public,  and 
that  those  slight  recensions  were  a  part  of  the  inten¬ 
tion  of  Sixtus  Y.  —  every  statement  of  which  was  a 
downright  falsehood,  as  proven  by  facts.  (Barnum,  p. 
171.)  When  they  have  thus  deceived  concerning 
the  Sacred  Scriptures  (for  a  Pope  can  lie  easily,  and 
by  the  casuistry  of  the  Church  be  excused) ,  do  you 
not  see  how  they  confound  all  moral  definitions? 

The  Church  makes  a  mortal  sin  of  very  little  things, 
and  at  the  same  time  sanctions  great  enormities,  the 
result  of  which  is  to  produce  the  utmost  confusion  in 
the  minds  of  her  people.  For  illustration  of  that,  on 
page  519  of  this  book,  Dr.  Barnum  gives  the  fol¬ 
lowing  quotation  about  mortal  sins  (I  will  first  read 
to  you  from  page  518  from  the  Catechism  sanctioned 
by  the  most  reverend  Dr.  Hughes,  Archbishop  of 
New  York,  that  you  may  know  what  is  a  mortal  sin)  : 
“  Q.  What  is  a  mortal  sin?  A.  A  mortal  sin  is 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


279 


that  which  kills  the  soul  and  deserves  hell.  Q.  How 
does  mortal  sin  kill  the  soul?  A.  Mortal  sin  kills 
the  soul  by  destroying  the  life  of  the  soul,  which  is 
the  grace  of  God.”  Passing  from  this,  I  want  to 
tell  you  what  the  Rt.  Rev.  Armand  Francis  Mary 
de  Charbonnel,  who  was  the  Bishop  of  Toronto  in 
Canada,  declared  were  mortal  sins.  He  says  : 
“Catholic  electors  in  this  country  who  do  not  use 
their  electoral  power  in  behalf  of  separate  schools, 
are  guilty  of  mortal  sin.  Likewise  parents  not 
making  the  sacrifices  necessary  to  secure  such  schools, 
or  sending  their  children  to  mixed  schools.  More¬ 
over,  the  Confessor  who  would  give  absolution  to 
such  parents,  electors,  or  legislators  as  support  mixed 
schools,  to  the  prejudice  of  separate  schools,  would  be 
guilty  of  a  mortal  sin.”  “  It  is  a  gross  and  very  com¬ 
mon  error  to  believe  that  to  drink  in  violation  of 
one’s  pledge  is  a  sin  in  itself.  To  drink  beyond 
measure,  is  a  mortal  or  venial  sin  of  intemperance, 
according  to  the  decree  of  drunkenness ;  but  to 
drink  with  moderation,  though  in  violation  of  one’s 
pledge,  is  not  a  sin,  unless  the  pledge  has  been  taken 
with  an  obligatory  intention,  or  by  way  of  vow  or 
oath  ;  which  should  never  be  done  without  a  spirit¬ 
ual  father’s  advice.” 

There  you  have  as  a  sample  the  confusion  that  they 
create .  They  say  a  man  will  go  to  hell  if  he  does 
not  vote  against  mixed  schools  ;  that  a  parent  will  go 
to  hell  if  he  permits  his  children  to  go  to  them.  They 
say  that  a  priest  will  go  to  hell  who  absolves  the 
people  who  do  these  things  ;  and  turn  right  round  and 


280  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

say  that  when  a  man  has  vowed  that  he  will  not 
drink,  he  commits  no  sin  in  breaking  his  oath,  although 
he  commits  a  sin  if  he  gets  too  drunk.  By  means  of 
such  confusion  all  moral  definitions  are  confounded, 
and  the  confounding  of  those  definitions  inevitably 
leads  to  immorality.  While  in  this  way  monstrous 
evils  and  sins  are  made  almost  virtues,  what  can  you 
expect  in  the  field  of  morality? 

They  teach  as  doctrines  that  some  very  just  acts 
are  exceedingly  wicked ;  for  instance,  that  it  is  a 
sacrilege  for  any  man  to  strike  a  priest ;  and  yet  if 
some  of  the  outraged  husbands  and  sons  should  follow 
the  dictates  of  their  natural  indignation,  there  would 
be  a  ^reat  deal  of  that  kind  of  sacrilege  committed. 
Many  a  priest  would  get  a  blow  from  the  hand  of 
outraged  virtue,  that  now,  by  reason  of  his  arrogance 
and  assumed  power,  he  escapes. 

Moreover,  they  declare  that  the  marriage  of  priests 
is  incest,  and  what  can  be  a  viler  crime?  And  yet  the 
Church  has  licensed  and  collected  taxes,  not  once  but 
many  times,  of  priests  who  keep  in  their  houses  not 
wives  but  other  women,  by  permission  and  sanction 
of  ecclesiastical  authority,  provided  they  paid  the  tax 
to  the  Church.  Out  of  similar  sin  the  Church  has 
gained  great  revenue.  How  all  moral  definitions 
are  thus  confounded,  and  how  inevitably  immorality 
follows  ! 

Father  Chiniquy  sa}^s,  they  teach  that  the  duty  of 
obedience  lays  the  entire  responsibility  of  the  act, 
whatever  that  act  may  be,  upon  the  Superior,  and  not 
on  the  person  who  has  done  the  deed.  Now  I  am 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  281 

very  near  the  close,  although  I  have  not  finished  all 
that  I  have  to  say  on  this  topic.  Permit  me  to  read 
to  you  as  follows,  from  St.  Liguori  once  more  :  “The 
principal  and  most  efficacious  means  of  practising 
obedience  due  to  superiors,  and  of  rendering  it  meri¬ 
torious  before  God,  is  to  consider  that,  in  obeying 
them,  we  obey  God  himself,  and  that  by  despising 
their  commands,  we  despise  the  authority  of  the 
Divine  Master.”  Notice  very  closely  now  (I  am 
reading  to  you  from  Saint  Liguori,  in  a  volume 
addressed  to  the  nuns)  :  “  When  thus  a  nun  receives 
a  precept  from  her  prelate,  superior  or  confessor,  she 
should  immediately  execute  it,  not  only  to  please 
them,  but  principally  to  please  God,  whose  will  is 
known  by  their  command.  If,  then,  you  receive  a 
command  from  one  who  holds  the  place  of  God,  you 
should  observe  it  as  if  it  came  from  God  himself.  It 
may  be  added,  that  there  is  more  certainty  of  doing 
the  will  of  God  by  obedience  to  our  superiors  than 
by  obedience  to  Jesus  Christ,”  (  God  forgive  us  for 
reading  such  blasphemy  !  )  “should  He  appear  in 
person  and  give  His  command.  St.  Philip  used  to 
say,  that  the  nun  or  monk  shall  be  most  certain  of  not 
having  to  render  an  account  of  the  actions  performed 
through  obedience  ;  for  these ,  the  superiors  only ,  who 
commands  them ,  shall  be  accountable.”  (  Chiniquy 
chap,  xiii.) 

Let  me  comment  in  a  word.  Here  is  a  nun  and  a 
monk  sworn  to  absolute  obedience  ;  as  the  priest  is 
to  the  Bishop  and  the  Bishop  is  to  the  Pope.  To 
her  the  Superior  gives  a  command  ;  any  kind  of  a 


282 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


command.  What  shall  the  person  do  who  receives 
that  command?  Obey  it  as  if  God  spoke  !  Obey  it 
more  than  if  God  spoke  !  !  That  is  clearly  what  is 
stated.  Whatever  the  deed  which  that  person  is 
commanded  to  do,  and  shall  do,  the  doer  has  no 
moral  responsibility  for  the  deed  ;  but  the  responsi¬ 
bility  rests  solely  on  the  person  who  directs  her 
to  perform  the  deed,  and  he  will  be  absolved  by 
another  man  who  has  done  the  very  same  thing. 
Thus  the  very  foundations  of  all  society  are  imper¬ 
illed  ;  all  moral  obligation  is  destroyed;  all  proper 
definition  of  what  is  right  and  wrong  is  set  aside,  by 
such  a  theory  and  doctrine  as  this. 

But  I  must  not  weary  you.  I  have  given  you  as 
much  as  you  can  think  of  and  remember  ;  although 
much  remains  to  be  said  upon  this  topic,  which  I  will 
bring  forward  on  the  next  occasion.  I  just  now 
stated  that  a  priest  may  absolve  from  sin,  whatever 
his  character. 

The  superstitions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
aver  this  :  that  the  priest,  of  whom  I  have  spoken, 
in  the  mass*  makes  out  of  the  wafer  God.  Then  he 
falls  down  and  worships  it ;  the  people  all  about 
him  fall  down  and  worship  it :  and  although  it  might 
be  poisoned  by  chemistry ,  or  might  be  eaten  by  rats, 
or  might  perish  from  moisture  or  drought,  they  say 
that  that  wafer  is  God,  the  body,  soul,  and  divinity 
of  God,  and  that  all  of  God  is  there  present.  At 
once  you  infer  that  the  creature  who  can  create  God 
is  greater  than  God.  The  man  who  can  manufac- 
ture  Deity  is  greater  than  the  Deity  that  lie  manu- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  283 

factures.  If  the  priests  can  make  God  out  of  wheat 
and  flour  bread,  then  they  are  more  divine  than  God 
himself.  But  this  priest  who  is  held  in  such  super¬ 
stitious  veneration,  of  course,  has  power  to  absolve 
fro m  sin.  W  hy  not  ? 

And  what  does  he  do  wfth  that  power?  He 
absolves  his  own  companions  in  guilt ;  he  absolves 
his  own  paramours  in  lust ;  and  when  it  is  done,  those 
persons  can  say,  under  oath,  that  they  have  never 
done  it ;  because  the  sin  absolved  is  as  though  it  had 
not  been  done.  Where  is  the  chance  for  morality 

%j 

here?  The  priests  have  done  this  so  often,  that 
Father  Chiniquy  says  a  very  great  number  of  them 
are  atheists  and  unbelievers,  because  the  natural 
consciences,  given  by  the  universal  diffusion  of  the 
spirit  of  God,  makes  it  impossible  for  a  man  to  believe 
such  things  to  be  right,  and  do  them. 

I  cannot  speak  of  their  alleged  miracles  ;  you  know 
how  many  there  are.  They  claim  to  have  the  thorns 
that  came  from  the  brow  of  the  bleeding  Son  of 
Man ;  and  say  that  these  thorns  bleed  on  certain 
occasions  !  There  are  two  cities  that  have  the  holy 
coat  woven  without  seam,  Treves  in  Prussia  and 
Argenteuil  in  France,  and  they  have  often  contended 
over  their  rights  in  the  matter  !  During  the  present 
century,  the  exposure  of  that  alleged  coat  has 
brought  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  into  the 
Papal  treasury.  They  liquefy,  on  certain  occasions, 
in  Naples,  the  blood  of  St.  Januarius,  and  the  super¬ 
stitious  crowd  supposes  the  Church  is  working  a  great 
miracle.  The  priests,  the  Bishops  and  the  Pope 


284 


1 lomanism  and  the  Republic. 


know  better;  but  they  permit  it.  We  remember 
when  the  time  came  round  in  Naples  once  for  the 
miracle  to  occur,  the  French  were  in  possession  of 
of  the  city,  and  the  priests  were  so  enraged  that  they 
would  not  let  the  blood  liquefy.  The  crowd  was 
furious  and  frantic,  anfl  a  riot  was  imminent.  Their 
fury  was  against  the  French  troops.  The  blood 
would  not  liquefy,  and  some  great  calamity  was  going 
to  fall  upon  them.  Whereupon  the  French  com¬ 
mander  planted  cannon  before  the  church  and  at  the 
corners  of  the  streets,  and  sent  word  to  the  priests 
that,  unless  the  blood  liquefied  in  ten  minutes,  he 
should  open  fire.  In  about  five  minutes  the  miracle  (  ?) 
was  done,  the  people  were  satisfied,  and  order 
was  restored  ! 

Now,  my  friends,  I  close  with  these  words.  Our 
papers  here,  as  I  have  already  said,  are  not  protest¬ 
ing,  as  leaders  of  public  opinion  should,  against  paro¬ 
chial  schools.  They  are  rather  helping  them.  We 
are  treated  to  two  columns  of  an  address  by  a  priest  at, 
the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  of  a  parochial  school 
in  honor  of  Leo.  XIII.  called  after  him,  and  not  one 
word  of  warning  or  remonstrance  against  Rome’s 
avowed  policy.  Public  opinion  in  this  city  and 
throughout  the  country  is  awakening,  but  our  papers 
have  no  word  to  say.  Now  when  Rome  teaches  our 
youth  what  I  have  read  you,  as  an  essential  part  of 
Romanism,  when  Rome  has  taught  that  and  made  the 
people  receive  it,  she  will  make  of  us  what  she  has 
made  of  other  nations.  And  Rome  has  always  taught 
and  practiced  such  immorality.  Our  immoral  and 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


285 


godless  schools  of  which  they  talk,  are  worth  more 
to-day  for  the  purification  of  morals  than  all  the 
Papacy.  I  would  give  more  for  the  diffusion  of 
American  public  schools  throughout  all  Europe 
and  the  world,  as  a  moral  force,  with  the  American 
spirit  in  them,  than  for  all  that  corrupted  Romanism 
is  doing  to-day ;  and  I  am  giving  my  strength 
to  this  work,  sanctioned  by  your  splendid  support, 
which  I  know  will  not  fail,  that  we  may  conserve  the 
interest  of  a  morality  as  strong  as  Plymouth  Rock, 
and  may  build  up  the  colossal  empire  which  God  has 
given  us  to  up-build,  on  the  foundations,  not  of  Rom¬ 
ish  casuistry  or  Papal  superstition,  but  on  founda¬ 
tions  of  pure  morality,  sound  learning,  free  education, 
the  ten  commandments,  and  the  true  religion  out  of 
which  all  these  blessings  spring. 


Sermon  £♦ 


SHALL  ROMANISM  TEACH  A  PAGAN  MORALITY  TO 

AMERICAN  YOUTH? 

You  will  find  my  text  to-night  in  the  Ten  Com¬ 
mandments,  the  first  and  second.  I  might  also 
include  the  third  ;  for  they  are  all  germane  to  what  I 
shall  say.  In  the  20th  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Exodus 
we  read:  44  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
me :  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven 
image,  or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in 
heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that 
is  in  the  water  under  the  earth.  Thou  shalt  not  bow 
down  thyself  to  them  nor  serve  them  :  for  I,  the 
Lord,  thy  God,  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity 
of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and 
fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me,  and  showing 
mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me,  and  keep 
my  commandments.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name 
of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain  :  for  the  Lord  will 
not  hold  him  guiltless  that  taketh  his  name  in  vain.” 

As  the  base  of  a  great  pyramid,  so  are  these  first 
commandments  of  the  ten  to  all  that  follow;  for  all 
the  Second  Table,  as  it  is  called,  that  command  man 
in  his  relations  to  his  fellows,  and  on  which  we  spoke 
on  last  Sabbath  evening,  are  founded  on  those  views 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


287 


of  God  and  relations  to  God  which  we  are  taught  to 
cherish.  It  is  therefore  particularly  appropriate  that 
the  Ten  Commandments  should  be  based  on  God  and 
true  worship,  inasmuch  as  morality  must  find  its 
only  sure  foundation  in  religion.  These  command¬ 
ments,  given  in  an  idolatrous  age,  pointed  directly  at 
and  against  all  Polytheism,  the  worship  of  many  gods  ; 
and  all  Paganism  which  forgot  God  ;  all  Atheism, 
which  denied  God  ;  and  all  Idolatry,  which  substitutes 
some  other  thing  for  the  God  who  alone  is  worthy  of 
worship.  The  Commandments  so  solemnly  announced 
at  Sinai  and  recorded  in  the  book  of  Exodus,  are 
still  further  elaborated  throughout  all  the  Sacred 
Word,  in  which  no  sin  is  more  frequently  spoken  of 
or  more  strongly  denounced  than  the  sin  of  idolatry. 

Through  all  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  from 
almost  the  first  words  to  the  last,  you  find  the  holy 
prophets  and  the  sacred  historians  teaching  us  of 
the  ruin  that  is  wrought  by  idolatry;  how  contrary  it 
is  to  the  divine  word,  how  sinful  it  is  in  the  sight  of 
God,  and  how  hurtful  to  all  mankind.  We.think  our¬ 
selves  so  far  away  from  such  gross  and  false  worship, 
that,  as  we  turn  our  thoughts  to  paganism  and  idol¬ 
atry,  we  are  ready  to  say  :  Where  in  all  the  world  do 
these  things  now  exist?  and  can  it  be  that  there  is  any 
place  so  benighted  as  that  men  there  fall  down  to 
worship  stocks  and  stones?  And  we  congratulate 
ourselves  that  a  better  faith  prevails  over  the  land 
where  we  live  ;  and  that  we  are  removed,  as  we 
fondly  suppose,  by  thousands  of  miles,  from  any  peo¬ 
ple  that  so  violates  the  plain  precepts  of  God,  of 


288 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


reason  and  of  morality.  But  let  us  inquire  a  little 
concerning  paganism  and  idolatry,  and  we  may  be 
compelled  to  confess  that  we  are  not  so  far  removed 
from  it  as  we  supposed. 

Paganism,  by  thoughtful  and  philosophical  writers, 
is  divided  for  discussion  into  three  parts.  You  know 
that  the  word  Paganism  means,  originally,  the  people 
who  live  outside  cities  ;  for  as  the  true  faith  of  God 
came  to  be  known  first  in  the  great  centers  of  popu¬ 
lation,  while  the  people  outside  of  those  centers  still 
adhered  to  their  ancient  superstitions,  it  came  to  pass 
that  those  who  dwelt  outside  were  denominated 
pagans,  on  account  of  their  false  worship.  Paganism, 
as  false  religion,  is  divided  into  three  clivisions. 

First,  we  speak  of  fabulous  paganism,  or  paganism 
founded  on  story,  and  legend,  and  myth  ;  such  as  you 
find  scattered  all  through  the  early  Roman,  and  Greek, 
and  Assyrian  mythologies,  and  through  all  the  nations 
of  the  north.  Strange,  weird  and  marvellous  stories 
are  made  the  object  of  the  credulous  faith  of  the 
people.  The  second  type  of  paganism  is  spoken  of 
as  physical  paganism  ;  that  is  seen  among  people  who 
have  an  idea  of  the  great  Ruler  of  the  world,  and  yet 
who  think  it  impossible  to  approach  the  sovereign 
God,  and  so  imagine  a  great  number  of  inferior  gods 
or  demi-gods,  who  are  characterized  sometimes  as 
demons  and  spirits,  and  sometimes  as  mighty 
men  and  heroes.  This  kind  of  paganism  has 
also  prevailed  in  many  quarters  of  the  world  at  vari¬ 
ous  periods  of  history.  The  third  type  of  paganism 
is  known  to  thinkers  as  political  paganism  ;  that  is  to 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


289 


say,  a  form  or  system  of  idol  worship,  with  elaborate' 
ceremonial  liturgies  and  formulas,  favored  by  the 
rulers,  and  used  to  suppress  the  freedom  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  to  attract  their  attention  and  to  make  them  at 
rest  under  various  forms  of  tyranny.  You  know 
that  Cicero  and  Seneca  did  not  believe  in  the  gods 
of  their  time  ;  but  they  thought  it  a  good  thing  for 
the  people  that  they  should  so  believe :  and  so 
they  cultivated  all  the  elaborate  ritual  of  the  early 
Roman  paganism,  in  order  that  the  people  might  have 
some  sort  of  religion  satisfying  to  their  minds,  closely 
linked  to  the  state,  and  under  state  control. 

All  history  illustrates  these  various  types  of  pagan 
worship.  And  myths,  mediators  and  ceremonials 
are  strikingly  suggestive  of  the  practices  of  a  corrupt 
and  paganized  Christianity.  By  idolatry  we  mean, 
that  exhibition  or  form  of  paganism  in  which  the 
object  of  worship  is  a  graven  image  of  some  sort,  or 
a  man,  or  a  hero,  or  some  animal,  or  something  else 
than  the  great  and  true  God.  The  Egyptians  were 
*  idolators  when  they  worshipped  a  great  variety  of 
living  creatures  ;  the  Romans  were  idolaters  when 
they  sacrificed  to  the  emperors  ;  the  Greeks  were 
idolaters  when  they  adored  the  beautiful  statues  of 
the  Parthenon  ;  the  African  and  the  American  Indian 
are  idolaters  when  they  roll  up  a  little  hair  in  a  wad, 
called  a  fetich,  and  bow  down  to  that  as  giving  them 
good  luck  and  favorable  fortunes. 

In  contrast  with  all  these  types  of  paganism,  how 
sharp  the  distinction  is  when  compared  with  true 
religion.  The  elements  of  the  true  Christian  relig- 


290 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


ion  seems  to  me  to  be  these  :  first,  a  belief  in  the  one 
'only  true  God,  the  father  and  creator  of  all  things  ; 
second,  a  belief  in  the  general  sinfulness  of  mankind 
in  their  relations  to  God  as  the  result  of  the  violation 
of  His  law  ;  third,  a  belief  in  the  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  Jesus  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man, 
who  in  the  fulness  of  time  was  manifested  for  human 
salvation  ;  fourth,  repentance,  and  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  by  which  men  come  to  be  partakers  of 
His  merit  and  grace  ;  and  finally,  to  sum  up  as  com¬ 
pactly  as  possible  our  relations  to  man,  the  spirit  of 
love,  of  generosity  and  of  humanity,  with  Christ  as 
that  type  of  manhood  which  we  are  all  to  seek  after 
and  imitate. 

When  you  contrast  this  system  of  true  religion 
with  paganism,  how  marked  the  antagonism.  For, 
instead  of  one  God,  the  pagan  believes  in  many  gods  ; 
instead  of  one  mediator,  he  believes  in  a  great  vari- 
ety  and  number  of  mediators,  who  variously  affect 
the  supernal  Power,  and  obtain  favors  for  men. 
Paganism  not  only  believes  in  a  variety  of  spiritual  * 
mediators,  but  also  believes  in  the  mission  of  priests  ; 
who,  as  the  priests  of  paganism,  always  had  an 
extraordinary  power  over  the  people,  because  those 
people  supposed  that  all  the  favors  which  they  could 
possibly  obtain  from  Deity  must  be  obtained  through 
the  intervention  of  these  priests.  Moreover,  pagan¬ 
ism  always  tends  to  a  very  elaborate  and  sensuous 
ceremonial  ritual,  with  a  great  variety  of  sacrifice, 
show,  form  and  splendor.  It  burns  incense  ;  clothes 
its  images  in  gorgeous  apparel  ;  and  supposes  that 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


291 


from  those  images,  on  certain  festivals,  special  favors 
can  be  obtained.  Not  only  so,  but  paganism  has 
shrines  which  are  counted  especially  holy,  where 
favors  can  be  obtained  for  men.  To  these,  pilgrim¬ 
ages  are  made,  when  thousands  of  people  move  to  the 
sacred  shrine,  to  get  from  it,  as  from  the  Delphic 
oracle,  some  enlargement  of  knowledge  concerning 

7  O  O  o 

divine  things.  Paganism,  moreover,  is  always  intol¬ 
erant,  fiercely  so.  The  spirit  of  paganism  cannot 
tolerate  any  other  gods  than  the  gods  which  they 
themselves  worship  ;  and  therefore  there  have  always 
been  religious  wars  between  pagan  nations  on  account 
of  their  mutual  hatred  of  each  other’s  religion.  Not 
only  is  paganism  fiercely  intolerant  and  inhuman  in 
its  relations  to  mankind,  but  it  is  grossly  immoral, 
and  always  so.  There  is  not  an  idolatrous  worship 
in  the  world,  nor  has  there  ever  been  one,  that  has 
maintained  a  high  standard  of  pure  morality.  And 
this  fact  is  a  demonstration  that  the  moral  law  is  a 
unit,  inasmuch  as  those  who  are  violators  of  the  first 
commandments  are  always  disobedient  to  those  that 
follow.  Not  only  is  paganism  grossly  immoral,  but 
the  ideals  of  manhood  which  are  entertained  by  pagan 
nations  are  inyariably  false.  Sometimes  their  ideal 
man  is  a  cruel  conqueror ;  sometimes  he  is  a  hidden 
ascetic  ;  sometimes  he  is  a  filthy  fakir  ;  sometimes  he 
is  one  who  subjects  himself  to  self-immolation,  and 
who  is  able  to  endure  torture  like  the  American 
Indian,  stoically,  and  without  a  cry  of  suffering. 

These  are  some  of  the  features  that  mark  paganism 
and  systems  of  idolatry.  Now  we  suppose  when  we 


292 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


think  of  Romanism  that  it  is  a  form  of  Christianity. 

Before  fully  considering  it,  we  naturally  say  that 
Romanism  is  a  part  of  the  Christian  Church.  We 
suppose  that  they  accept  the  same  God  whom  we 
accept ;  they  worship  the  same  Saviour  in  whom  we 
believe ;  they  cultivate  the  same  morality  that  we 
cultivate  ;  they  advance  the  kingdom  of  Christ  which 
we  seek  to  advance  ;  and  they  undertake  to  further 
the  same  doctrines  which  we  profess.  To  a  degree* 
it  is  true  that  a  portion  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  are  Christian  doctrines ;  and  it  is 
also  true,  that  if  we  look  at  a  few  Biblical  doctrines 
Romanism  may  justly  be  called  a  Christian  Church  : 
but  is  just  as  true  that  in  Romanism  error  has  been 
so  mingled  with  truth  that  while  Rome  does  adhere 
to  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
it  adheres  to  all  the  doctrines  of  paganism ;  and  while 
Rome  on  the  one  hand  holds  as  truth  not  a  few  of 
those  things  that  are  held  by  Protestant  Christians, 
on  the  other  hand  it  exhibits  and  developes  every 
feature  that  characterizes  idolatrous  systems  and 
pagan  theologies. 

Observe,  if  you  please,  that  Romanism  receives  as 
the  word  of  God,  equal  to  the  Gospels,  the  word  of 
the  Pope,  the  canon  law,  the  decrees  of  councils.  Be¬ 
sides  the  true  God,  they  worship  other  beings,  paying 
them  divine  honors.  They  worship  the  Pope,  the 
mass  ;  they  have  their  sacred  shrines  ;  they  burn  their 
incense ;  they  have  their  elaborate  and  sensuous 
ceremonials  ;  they  clothe  their  images  with  splendid 
apparel.  They  have  pilgrimages  to  special  shrines* 


Romanism  and  the  Rejnthlic. 


293 


exactly  as  idolaters  have  always  had.  Moreover, 
among  their  mediators  they  glorify  the  Virgin  Mary, 
as  much  or  more  than  Christ.  They  depend  for  their 
salvation  not  on  Christ  alone,  but  as  truly  on  martyrs, 
whom  they  petition,  and  to  whom  they  appeal.  They 
worship  images  ;  they  worship  them  all  the  world 
over,  and  believe  that  in  the  image  itself  there  resides 
some  supernal  power.  A  large  number  of  their 
images  have  been  supposed  to  be  able  to  work  mira¬ 
cles,  as  I  shall  hereafter  show  you.  Not  only  this, 
but  their  priests  exercise  the  same  extraordinary 
sway  over  the  people  that  was  exercised  by  the  pagan 
priests  in  former  times,  and  that  is  exercised  to-day. 
Those  priests  are  mediators  between  God  and  man. 
Men  are  dependent  on  them  for  forgiveness  and 
heaven  !  They  with  the  martyrs  and  saints,  the 
Virgin,  the  images  and  the  mass,  stand  between  God 
and  man,  and  hold  the  superstitious  veneration  of 
millions  of  their  deluded  followers  as  being  almost 
more  than  human.  But  moreover  :  Romanism,  like 
Paganism,  is  fiercely  intolerant.  It  visits  all  other 
religions  with  anathema,  with  excommunication  and 
with  curse,  and  has  visited  them  from  time  to  time 
with  the  sword,  with  the  Inquisition,  and  with  the 
vengeance  of  torture  and  death.  Moreover,  as  I 
showed  you  on  last  Sunday  night,  Romanism  is 
grossly  immoral.  It  teaches  immorality  by  its  theo¬ 
logians.  It  practices  immorality  by  its  Priests, 
Bishops,  Popes  and  laymen.  It  justifies  immorality 
I) y  false  reasoning;  and  throughout  all  the  world 
where  its  teachings  prevail,  exhibits  a  standard  of 


294 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


moral  teaching  which  is  closely  allied  to  that  of 
paganism.  Not  only  is  Romanism  immoral,  but  it  is 
inhuman  in  its  conception  of  the  ideal  man.  Popes, 
Councils  and  Bishops  have  lauded  what  they  call 
virginity  or  the  unmarried  state  as  far  superior  to  holy 
marriage,  while  they  have  founded  their  innum¬ 
erable  houses  of  monks  and  nuns  which  have  needed  to 
be  reformed  very  many  times  by  the  laws  of  the 
Church,  on  account  of  the  vile  immorality  into  which 
they  have  plunged  their  votaries ;  and  while  they 
have  done  this,  the}^  have  multiplied  immorality  in 
practical  life  throughout  all  nations  which  they  have 
controlled  ;  so  that  to  read  the  historv  of  Roman 
Catholic  countries  to-day  is  to  read  a  history  of 
viciousness  which  brings  a  blush  to  every  Christian’s 
cheek. 

While,  therefore,  Romanism,  on  one  hand,  has 
some  attributes  of  Christianity  ;  on  the  other  hand  it 
has  all  the  attributes  of  idolatry  and  paganism  ;  and 
I  shall  show  this  evening,  and  on  next  Sunday  even¬ 
ing,  if  God  spares  us  until  that  time,  first,  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  worships  and  indorses  the 
worship  of  images;  second,  that  they  worship  the 
mass,  which  is  no  more  nor  less  in  fact  than  an  object 
of  adoration,  as  God  :  third,  that  they  worship  the 
Pope,  and  call  him  God  :  again,  that  they  worship 
saints  and  martyrs,  and  entreat  their  interest  at  the 
Throne  of  heavenly  grace  :  in  addition  to  this,  they 
believe  in  charms,  and  attribute  to  them  supernatu¬ 
ral  powers.  Relics,  also,  are  objects  of  their  wor¬ 
ship.  The  idols  of  Rome  are  scarcely  fewer  than 
the  idols  of  India. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


295 


Do  you  ask  me  why  I  bring  this  impeachment 
against  them?  I  answer,  for  the  following  reasons  : 
They  demand  the  allegiance  of  us  all.  They 
denounce  against  us  the  direst  excommunication. 
They  remand  all  of  us  to  perdition  (their  Popes  do, 
some  of  their  liberal  clergy  do  not)  ;  for  I  have  read 
you  from  this  pulpit  the  excommunication  of  all 
heretics  by  the  Pope.  They  denounce  our  schools 
as  godless,  saying  that  they  will  make  them  godly  by 
teaching  Romanism  ;  which  in  itself  is  a  falsehood  of 
vast  magnitude.  And  they  are  putting  forth  all  their 
energies  to  substitute  on  this  continent,  in  the  last 
part  of  the  19th  century,  a  system  of  religion  as 
foreign  to  the  intelligence  and  piety  of  our  people 
as  the  system  that  prevails  in  India,  or  which 
prevailed  in  Egypt,  or  in  the  Roman  Empire  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  Therefore  I  resent 
their  claims  ;  therefore  I  call  your  attention  to  them ; 
therefore  I  impeach  their  Christianity  ;  and  therefore 
I  pray,  that  the  day  may  never  come  when  we  shall 
have  idolatry  substituted  for  the  pure  word  of  God 
and  the  fellowship  of  saints. 

i. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  idolatrous,  wor¬ 
shipping  images  and  sanctioning  their  worship.  That 
is  a  startling  charge,  but  listen  to  the  proof. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in 
many  of  its  standard  works,  takes  out  of  the  Ten 
Commandments  the  Second  Commandment ;  and  in 
order  to  make  ten,  divides  up  the  tenth  into  ninth 
and  tenth.  Here  is  their  first  attempt  for  the 
justification  of  their  idolatry,  the  suppression  of  the 


296 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


word  of  God,  so  that  the  plain  command,  “Thou 
shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  nor  any 
likeness  of  anything  that  is  in  heaven  above, 
or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water 
under  the  earth  ;  thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself 
to  them,  nor  serve  them,” — this  commandment  is 
bodily  rejected  from  the  ten.  I  have  here  in  my 
hand  a  list  of  five  of  their  catechisms  in  which  this 
has  been  done.  Let  me  read.  From  Dr.  Barnum’s 
“  Romanism,”  p.  630,  I  read  :  “  The  Roman  Catholic 
Church  sometimes  suppresses  the  second  command¬ 
ment  of  the  decalogue  in  its  catechisms,”  etc.  Of  works 
published  in  this  country,  “The  Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,”  “The  General  Catechism  of  Chris¬ 
tian  Doctrine,”  prepared  by  order  of  the  National 
Council,  “St.  John’s  Manual,”  etc.,  bring  the  first  and 
second  commandment  into  the  first,  and  divide  the 
tenth  into  the  ninth  and  tenth.  "Butler’s  Catechism,”  as 
published  in  New  York,  gives  the  Ten  Commandments 
thus,  word  for  word  :  "(1)  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  : 
thou  shalt  not  have  strange  gods  before  me,  etc. 
(2)  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  in  vain.  [Here  I  omit  what  intervenes  between 
the  2nd  and  9th.]  (9)  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy 
neighbor’s  wife.  (10)  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy 
neighbor’s  goods.”  “Collet’s  Doctrinal  and  Scriptural 
Catechism”  abridges  the  commandments  still  more: 
giving  the  first,  on  page  277,  as:  “Thou  shalt  not 
have  strange  gods  before  me,”  and  then  devoting 
more  than  thirty  pages  to  this  command  as  thus  given. 
Yet  “on  pp.  274  and  277,  the  copy  of  the  command- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


297 


nients  as  they  are  recorded  in  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures,  Book  of  Exodus,  chapter  20,  gives  the  first  as 
above,  with  this  in  addition  :  “  Thou  shalt  not  make 
to  thee  a  graven  thing :  thou  shalt  not  adore  them 
nor  serve  them.”  The  Catechisms  published  in  this 
country  are  thus  inconsistent  in  their  citations  of  this 
commandment.  Those  published  in  thoroughly 
Roman  Catholic  countries  probably  omit  more  uni¬ 
formly  that  part  of  the  First  Commandment  which 
we  properly  call  the  Second  Commandment.  The 
Roman  Catholic  Church  thus  rends  the  Ten  Com¬ 
mandments,  the  basis  of  all  moral  law,  in  order  that 
they  may  not,  with  all  their  affrontery,  stand  up 
defiantly  and  face  the  moral  law  as  God  gave  it. 

2.  Pagans  were  wont  to  set  up  images  in  nearly  all 
places,  as  well  as  in  all  their  temples.  The  Roman 
Gatholics  also  set  up  images  in  all  places  :  from  the 
great  fane  of  St.  Peter’s  in  Rome,  down  to  the  cross¬ 
roads  in  Switzerland  and  Italy,  you  find  everywhere 
the  images  placed  there  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  Images  form  a  part  of  the  stock-in-trade 
■of  the  religious  furnishing-houses  of  that  church, 
Images  made  of  zinc,  of  the  Virgin  and  the  Child,  are 
offered  for  sale  at  prices  varying  from  $5  to  $350. 
As  concerning  these  images,  the  pagans  formerly  sup¬ 
posed  that  images  (in  some  way,  they  knew  not  how,) 
contained  the  disembodied  spirits  of  those  whose 
image  was  worshipped.  Romanism  teaches  exactly 
the  same  doctrine.  I  have  a  book  here  which  I  have 
not  introduced  to  you  before,  written  by  the  Right 
Hon.  Lord  Robert  Montagu,  who  was  a  member  of 


298 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


the  Church  of  England,  and  who  afterwards  joined 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He  remained  in  that 
Church  for  a  number  of  years,  and  at  length  left  it 
on  account  of  its  utter  inadequacy  to  satisfy  his  soulr 
and  has  given  us  the  benefit  of  his  sweat  learning  and 
of  his  careful  observation,  in  a  work  which  is  called 
“The  Sower  and  the  Virgin;  ”  a  work  that  is  pub¬ 
lished  in  England,  but  which  I  am  so  fortunate  as  to 
have  obtained.  From  this  I  will  read  (p.  162),  to 
prove  to  you  that  Romanists  believe  that  spiritual 
powers  reside  in  their  images  :  “  Particular  localities, 
churches,  or  shrines,  were  held  to  be  more  frequented 
by  the  saints  than  all  other  parts  of  the  world,  and 
those  places  were  therefore  visited  by  thousands,  who 
came  from  vast  distances  to  pray  to  those  omniscient 
and  omnipresent  saints.  Moreover,  images  of  those 
saints,  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Neo- 
platonists,  were  supposed  to  contain  their  disem¬ 
bodied  spirits  in  some  way,  which  rendered  prayers 
to  images  an  efficacious  way  of  obtaining  the  fulfil- 
ment  of  one’s  desires.  This  was  exactly  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  pagan  priests  of  antiquity.  It  was  this 
doctrine  which  gave  sanctity  and  power  to  the  images 
of  Jupiter,  of  Mercury  and  of  Apollo.  It  was  this 
doctrine  which  lay  at  the  root  of  the  practice  of 
ignorant  heathen,  from  the  time  of  the  primeval 
Chamites  of  Africa  to  the  Turanians  of  India  in  their 
fetich  worship.  The  bones  of  supposed  martyrs,  the 
bits  of  the  real  cross,  the  blessed  crucifixes  that  had 
taken  the  place  of  the  barsam,  the  amulets  and  talis¬ 
mans  and  charms,  which  were  supposed,  in  old  times. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


299 


to  foretell  the  future,  to  repel  evil  spirits,  and  to 
heal  the  diseases  of  body  and  mind.” 

The  Eighth  General  Council  commands  the  adora- 
tion  of  images.  The  fatuous  superstition  of  that  ago 
is  perhaps  more  fitly  illustrated  by  the  third  canon 
of  the  Eighth  General  Council,  which  was  held  in 
Constantinople,  in  870  A.  D.  :  “We  decree  that 
the  holy  image  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  libera¬ 
tor  and  saviour  of  all  men,  shall  be  adored  equally 
with  the  Book  of  the  Holy  Gospels”  (Remember, 
this  was  the  infallible  Council  la  vino;  down  dogmas 

t/  o  O 

that  are  just  as  much  believed  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  as  we  believe  the  Bible)  ;  “  for  as  by  uttering 
the  syllables  which  are  found  written  in  that  book 
we  all  attain  our  eternal  salvation,  so  also,  by  the 
operation  of  the  imagination  on  the  colors  of  the 
image,  we  all,  learned  and  unlearned,  derive  an 
equal  advantage.  Every  one,  therefore,  who  does 
not  adore  an  image  of  our  Saviour,  shall  not  behold 
Himself  when  he  comes  in  his  glory,  to  be  glorified 
with  and  to  glorify  all  his  saints  :  but  such  an  one  shall 
be  debarred  from  all  communion  with  him  in  his 
glory.  The  same  rule  applies  to  the  image  of*  Mary, 
his  pure  mother,  and  the  mother  of  God  :  so  it  does 
also  to  the  images  of  the  holy  angels,  and  also  to 
images  of  the  most  praiseworthy  apostles  and  pro¬ 
phets  and  martyrs  and  holy  men,  and  to  the  images 
of  all  the  saints.  We  must  honor  and  adore  all  those 
images  also.  And  if  any  one  should  omit  to  adore 
them  all,  let  him  be  anathema  from  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.”  (Montagu,  p.  224.) 


300 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

Here  you  have  the  verbatim  declaration  of  a 
General  Council,  which  makes  the  salvation  of  every 
Romanist,  and  every  other  person,  to  depend  on  his 
adoration,  not  only  of  images  of  Christ,  but  images 
of  the  Virgin,  and  the  apostles,  and  martyrs,  and  all 
other  images  that  are  set  up  in  their  churches  to 
be  worshipped. 

St.  Thomas  Aquinas  is  one  of  the  great  saints  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  and  perhaps  he  deserves 
his  saintship  quite  as  well  as  any  of  them,  for  it  must 
be  said  in  truth,  that  many  of  the  saints  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  were  chief! v  distinguished 
as  sinners.  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  tells  us  that  the 
service  rendered  to  the  person  ought  to  be  also  paid 
to  the  image.  I  read  on  the  268th  page  of  this  book  : 
“  Thomas  Aquinas  declares  that  the  same  service 
or  worship  has  to  be  paid  both  to  the  person  and  to 
the  image  of  the  person  ;  the  same  to  an  image  of 
Christ  as  to  Christ  himself;  the  same  to  Mary  and  to 
an  image  of  Mary ;  the  same  to  a  saint  and  to  an 
image  of  the  saint.  As  Christ  must  be  worshipped 
with  supreme  devotion,  therefore  an  image  of  him 
must  always  be  adored  with  supreme  devotion.” 
Further,  Thomas  Aquinas  says,  mentioning  the 
cross  on  which  Christ  was  crucified  :  “  We  say  that 
a  cross  is  to  be  worshipped  with  the  worship  due  to 
God;  and  for  this  reason  we  supplicate  a  cross,  and 
we  pray  to  a  cross,  as  if  Christ  himself,  hanging  on 
the  cross,  were  before  us  !  ” 

Many  and  many  a  time,  in  foreign  lands,  have  T 
seen  the  poor  people  drop  down  in  the  presence  of  a 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


301 


cross  by  the  road -side,  or  in  a  chapel,  and  embrace 
it  as  though  they  held  the  feet  of  Christ  himself ;  and 
you  remember,  that  in  so  doing,  they  are  simply 
following  out  the  teaching  of  their  most  revered 
theologians  and  their  canonized  saints. 

o 

3.  They  claim  further,  that  images  have  the 
power  to  work  a  variety  of  miracles.  I  might  read 
passages  to  you  affirming  this,  and  should  be  glad 
to,  if  I  had  time.  There  is  in  Auvergne,  in  France, 
an  image  called  The  Black  Virgin,  which  is  rever- 

O  O  7 

enced  by  the  superstitious  people  as  the  very 
Mother  of  God.  This  image  is  said  to  have  per¬ 
formed  a  variety  of  miracles.  Moreover,  there  are 
images  that  are  said  to  roll  their  eves,  and  other 
images  sweat  blood  on  given  occasions ;  while  other 
images  are  able  to  heal  the  sick,  and  others  to  give 
personal  benefits  of  great  value  to  such  as  frequent 
their  shrines.  Some  of  these  images  have  passed 
under  my  own  eye,  among  them  the  famous  Bambino. 

In  the  Church  of  the  Aracoeli  at  Borne,  at  the 
Capitoline  hill,  there  was  formerly  a  bronze  image 
of  a  she-wolf  that  was  worshipped  by  the  old  Roman 
pagans.  They  have  taken  away  the  bronze  image  of 
the  she-wolf,  and  have  put  in  its  stead  one  of  the 
most  hideous-looking  wooden  dolls  that  one  ever 
beheld.  That  Bambino  (the  word  means  baby)  as 
an  object  of  worship,  I  have  looked  at,  while  hundreds 
were  thronging  in  and  prostrating  themselves  before 
it.  It  is  most  carefully  guarded  by  the  priests  of  that 
Church,  as  containing  miraculous  power.  More  defer¬ 
ence  is  paid  to  the  gem-crusted,  swathed,  ugly,  mod- 


302 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


ern  image  of  Bambino  Jesu,  kept  by  the  friars  of  the 
church  of  Aracoeli,  than  to  any  other  image  of  Christ 
in  Borne.  It  is  supposed  to  work  miracles,  and 
gems  are  offered  from  the  sick  whom  it  has  healed. 
It  is  taken  in  a  splendid  carriage,  with  servants  in  liv¬ 
ery,  to  the  sick  person,  and  if  when  laid  upon  the 
body  it  remains  red  in  the  face  a  cure  will  be  effected  ; 
if  it  becomes  pallid,  the  sick  person  will  inevitably 
die.  Hot  only  so,  but  they  adorn  their  deities  with 
splendid  dresses ;  the  Bambino  is  clothed  royally, 
and  decorated  with  "littering  gems.  I  have  seen 
images  of  the  Virgin  clothed  in  almost  royal  robes. 
On  her  head  crowns  are  placed  sparkling  with  jewels, 
and  these  robes  and  these  crowns  are  to  make  more 
life-like  the  images  before  which  the  superstitious 
people  bend  in  fervent  and  devout  adoration.  If  the 
day  shall  ever  come  when  the  shrines  of  Home  shall 
be  spoiled  for  the  sake  of  getting  back  into  the  hands 
of  the  impoverished  people  a  part  of  the  ill-gotten 
wealth  which  has  been  lavished  thereon,  it  will  be 
found  that  there  will  be  an  abundance  of  treasures 
which  now  adorn  images  that  are  supposed  to  be 
invested  with  supernatural  power. 

Charms  are  said  to  be  wrought  by  little  images,  and 
those  charms  are  believed  in  exactly  as  the  pagans 
believed  in  theirs.  “  Just  as  Scylla,  the  dictator, 
consulted  a  little  Apollo  hung  around  his  neck, 
(B.  C.  68) ,  so  Pope  Gregory  XIV.  (A.  I).  1590)  put 
his  trust  in  a  figure  of  St.  Philip  Neri,  by  which 
image  he  believed  that  his  life  was  saved  in  an  earth- 
quake  at  Beneventum.”  (Hare’s  “Rome,”  vol.  2, 
page  168.) 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


303 


And  so  that  man,  the  head  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
'Church,  arrogating  to  himself  to  he  the  vicar  of 
Christ,  worshipped  as  a  demigod,  and  even  a  god,  by 
his  people,  believed  in  charms  ;  exactly  as  the  savage, 
roaming  the  Western  plains,  believes  in  the  little 
bunch  of  hair  that  he  carries  about  his  neck  ! 

A  mono;  the  images  that  I  must  mention,  in  order  to 

C/  O  7 

give  you  a  just  idea  of  their  prominence,  let  me 
remark  on  that  in  St.  Peter's,  the  imaoe  of  Peter 
himself.  Under  that  grandest  dome  in  the  world,  in  a 
church  the  splendor  of  which  exceeds  anything  your 
eyes  ever  rested  on,  unless  you  have  seen  that  itself, 
on  a  high  pedestal,  higher  than  my  breast,  stands 
this  bronze  statue,  larger  than  life,  cast  from  the  bronze 
that  was  formerly  in  an  old  Roman  statue,  now  made 
to  represent  the  apostle  Peter.  This  also  is  clothed 
with  the  Pope’s  robes,  once  in  a  year;  on  its  head  is 
placed  the  triple  crown,  and  on  its  finger  the  ring  of 
the  Pope  ;  and  every  day  when  that  church  is  open, 
(I  think  it  is  open  every  day  in  the  year), 
the  thronging  multitudes  crowd  about  the  ima^e  and 

o  o  o 

bow  themselves  down  before  it  as  if  it  were  God. 
The  bronze  statue  of  Peter  is  worshipped  devoutly 
by  the  peasants  and  lower  population,  who  kneel  long 
on  the  marble  floor  before  it ;  then  reverently  approach 
to  kiss  the  worn  toe,  that  records  the  millions  of 
kisses  it  has  received.  I  saw  a  noble-looking  priest, 
robed  in  white,  his  head  as  white  as  his  dress,  rever¬ 
ently  approach  this  statue,  carefully  wipe  the  worn 
toe,  kiss  it,  and  press  his  forehead  against  it  ;  kiss  it  a 
second  time  with  tokens  of  awe  and  reverence,  and 


304 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


then  retire  as  from  the  presence  of  a  royal  ruler. 
In  the  Cathedral  at  Pisa  is  an  old  image  of  Mars,  now 
called  St.  Ephesus,  and  held  in  great  veneration. 

“At  St.  Paul’s  Church,  in  Rome,  is  venerated  a 
crucifix  saved  from  the  great  fire  of  1824,  which 
spoke  to  St.  Bridget.  These  are  but  a  few  instances 
from  thousands  of  images  worshipped.” 

What  farther  proof  is  needed  that  the  Roman 
Catholics  are  idolators  by  command  of  their  councils  ; 
by  the  command  and  toleration  of  their  popes  ;  by 
the  examples  of  their  priests,  and  by  the  word  of 
their  greatest  theologians  ?  Do  you  say  that  they 
only  use  these  images  for  the  sake  of  assisting  devo¬ 
tion,  and  that  they  really  do  not  worship  them?  I 
answer,  that  a  friend  of  mine,  who  was  a  missionary 
in  India,  conversing  with  the  better  class  of  natives r 
asked  :  “  Can  it  be  that  you  worship  these  grotesque 
images?  ”  And  they  answered  :  “  Oh,  no  ;  we  do  not 
worship  the  image.  The  image  assists  our  devotion  ; 
but  we  worship  the  great  being  that  is  suggested  by 
it.”  So  said  they,  and  we  call  them  idolators  ;  but  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  we  know  that  while  the  more  intel¬ 
ligent  Hindoo  or  Roman  Catholic  may  think  of 
diviner  things  than  the  statue,  most  of  them  pay 
their  devotion  to  the  statue  itself,  and  suppose  that  the 
image  has  in  it  God  ;  just  as  much  as  the  old  Greek 
supposed  that  Zeus,  or  Minerva,  or  Approdite, 
or  any  other  of  their  gods  was  present  in  the  marble 
statues  with  which  they  decorated  Athens,  and  to 
which  they  paid  their  vows.  When  these  images 
are  alleged  to  work  miracles,  to  laugh  and  cry,  to 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


305 


roll  their  eyes  upward  nnd  downward,  to  sweat  drops 
of  blood  ;  and  when  sometimes  their  perspiration  is 
is  said  to  be  so  holy  that  the  people  almost  trample- 
on  each  other  to  get  closer  in  order  that  they  may 
apply  their  finger  to  the  sacred  moisture  ;  when  these 
things  are  occurring  every  dav,  how  can  we  hesitate 
to  affirm  that  the  Romish  adorers  of  images  are  vio- 
lating  the  fundamental  law  of  God,  and  that  they  are 
idolaters,  just  as  much  as  any  who  ever  lived  on  the 
face  of  the  earth. 

I  have  not  time,  nor  do  I  know  as  I  have  the  dispo¬ 
sition,  to  tell  you  how  these  images  are  made  to 
appear  to  work.  Every  intelligent  person  here 
present  knows  that  by  various  devices  all  this  could 
be  done.  However,  for  example,  there  was  found 
an  image  in  South  America  which  had  great  fame  as 
a  sweating  image.  It  was  made  of  papier  mache, 
and  a  pipe  connected  the  interior  of  it  with  a  hot 
water  tank,  from  which  the  convenient  liquid  was 
passed  into  the  statue,  to  the  wonder  of  the  awe- 
inspired  crowd  of  worshippers. 

II.  And  they  worship  also  the  “mass.”  You  know 
that  Christian  churches  celebrate  the  Lord’s  supper 
by  the  use  of  bread  and  wine.  The  Roman  Catholics, 
in  celebrating  the  Lord’s  supper  with  very  great  cere¬ 
mony,  get  out  of  the  bread,  or  the  wafer,  which  they 
use  at  the  mass  (as  thev  say  in  their  catechism  and 
their  theological  works),  the  body  and  blood,  the 
spirit  and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  when  the 
priest  has  performed  over  this  piece  of  bread  the 
ceremonial  of  the  mass,  he  bows  down  and  worships 


306 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


it)  as  being  truly  and  all  divine  ;  and  then  lifts  it  up  as 
a  sacrifice  to  God.  Father  Chiniquy  says,  that  when 
he  was  made  a  priest  he  believed  that  the  making  of 
the  bread  of  the  mass  into  the  body  of  Christ  was  a 
greater  miracle  than  that  performed  by  Joshua  when 
he  commanded  the  sun  and  moon  to  stand  still ;  and  he 
tells  of  the  devout  feelings  with  which  he  bowed  him- 
self  when,  for  the  first  time,  this  divine  tiling  was  in 

O 

his  hands.  Pope  Urban  II.  tells  us,  and  I  will  read 
his  own  words,  that  this  bread  is  truly  God  and  to  be, 
worshipped.  (Montagu,  page  231.)  Pope  Urban  II. 
who  had  sanctioned  the  indiscriminate  murder  of  all 
excommunicated  persons,  came  to  the  Papal  throne  in 
1088.  While  presiding  over  a  council,  he  made  the 
following  declaration,  and  all  the  members  of  the 
council  shouted  “Amen”  :  “  The  hands  of  all  priests 
are  exalted  to  an  eminence  denied  to  all  angels  :  for 
priests  create  God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe  ;  then 
with  their  hands  they  offer  him  up  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world.”  There  is  more  similar  to  this  that  I 
could  read  you,  but  this  is  sufficient. 

Father  Chiniquy  tells  us,  that  when  he  was  in  the 
seminary  of  Mcolet  in  Canada,  the  Father-Superior  was 
wont  to  tell  them  the  following  story,  to  illustrate  the 
power  of  the  priest :  that  once  a  French  priest,  con¬ 
demned  to  death,  while  passing  along  the  street, 
performed  the  ceremony  of  the  mass  on  every  loaf 
of  bread  that  there  was  in  the  street ;  so  that,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Father-Superior,  every  particle  of  that  bread 
was  the  very  body  and  blood,  spirit  and  divinity  of 
Christ.  And  he  also  told  his  students,  that  one  priest 


Romanism  and  t he  Republic. 


307 


had  the  power,  if  he  chose,  to  turn  every  loaf  of  bread 
in  the  universe  into  that  same  Divinity  ! 

A  friend  of  mine  told  me,  ten  years  ago,  that  in 
the  city  of  Montreal  he  could  remember  the  time 
when  a  procession  was  passing,  with  the  Host  (that 
is,  with  the  sacred  bread  made  into  the  body  of  God), 
elevated  in  the  midst  of  the  procession  ;  and  he  said, 
the  people  'were  expected  to  fall  on  their  knees  all 
along  that  street  as  it  passed.  And  when  a  Protest¬ 
ant  gentleman  declined  to  fall  down,  he  was  struck 
on  the  head  a  violent  blow  by  one  of  the  passers-by, 
and  was  compelled  by  force  to  kneel.  That  was  in 
Canada  within  the  past  twenty  years ;  and  it  shows 
how  great  their  reverence  is  for  this  mass-worship. 

In  order  to  give  you  a  clearer  idea  of  this  whole 
matter,  allow  me  to  read  from  an  author  who  quotes 
Roman  Catholics  so  fully  that  his  words  are  more 
emphatic  and  convincing  than  my  own.  I  read  from 
Edgar’s  “Variations  of  Popery,”  p.  418  :  “Transub- 
stantiation  varies  from  our  ideas  of  matter  and  the 
evidence  of  the  senses,  while  it  presents  the  absurd¬ 
ity  of  creating  the  Creator,  and  the  horror  of  canni- 
balism  in  eating  the  Incarnate  God  !  This  dogma 
contradicts  all  our  ideas  of  material  substances.  Mat¬ 
ter  it  represents  as  divested  of  dimension,  figure, 
parts,  impenetrability,  motion,  divisibility,  exten¬ 
sion,  locality,  or  quantity.  Length,  breadth  and 
thickness,  according  to  this  theology,  exist  without 
anything  long,  broad  or  thick.  Substance  remains 
without  accidents,  and  accidents  without  substance. 
The  same  body  is  in  many  places  at  the  same  time. 


308 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Jesus,  at  the  same  instant,  is  entire  in  heaven,  on 
earth,  and  on  thousands  of  altars  ;  while  millions  of 
bodies  are  but  one  body.  The  whole  is  equal  to  a 
part,  and  a  part  equal  to  the  whole.  A  whole  human 
body  is  compressed  into  the  wafer,  and  remains  en¬ 
tire  and  undivided  in  each  of  ten  thousand  wafers. 

“The  person  who  can  digest  all  these  contradictions 
must  have  an  extraordinary  capacity  of  faith — or 
credulity. 

“The  Popish  dogma  also  contradicts  the  infor¬ 
mation  conveyed  by  our  senses. 

“Sight,  touch,  taste,  and  smell  declare  flesh  and 
blood,  if  this  theory  be  true,  to  be  bread  and  wine. 
No  man  can  see,  feel,  taste  or  smell  any  difference  be¬ 
tween  a  consecrated  and  an  unconsecrated  wafer.  The 
senses,  not  merely  of  one,  but  of  all  men,  even  when 
either  the  organ  or  medium  is  indisposed,  are,  ac¬ 
cording  to  this  theory,  deceived,  without  any  possi¬ 
bility  of  detecting  the  fallacy.  Many  subjects,  such 
as  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation,  are  beyond  the 
grasp  of  our  bodily  senses,  and,  indeed,  of  human 
reason  ;  these  are  to  be  judged  by  the  testimony  of 
revelation  :  but  bread  and  wine  are  material,  and  level 
with  the  view  of  our  organs  of  perception.  The 
sacramental  elements  can  be  seen,  smelled,  touched 
or  tasted.  Our  external  organs,  say  the  friends  of 
transubstantiation,  are  in  this  institution  deceived  in 
all  men,  at  all  times,  and  on  all  occasions. 

“Cardinal  Biel  extends  this  power  to  all  priests. 
‘He  that  created  me,’  says  the  Cardinal,  ‘gave  me,  if 
it  be  lawful  to  tell,  to  create  Himself!’  His  Holiness. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


309 


not  only  manufactures  bis  own  God,  but  transfers, 
with  tlie  utmost  freedom  ami  facility,  the  same  pre¬ 
rogative  to  the  whole  priesthood.  ‘This  power,’ Biel 
says,  ‘exalts  the  clergy  not  only  above  emperors  and 
angels  ;  but,  which  is  a  higher  elevation,  above  Lady 
Mary  herself.  Her  ladyship,’  says  the  Cardinal, 
‘once  conceived  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Redeemer  of 
the  world  ;  while  the  priest  daily  calls  into  existence 
the  same  Deit}^.  These  creators  of  God,  therefore, 
excel  the  Mother  of  God.’  The  Popish  clergy,  as 
they  make,  so  they  eat  their  God,  and  transfer  him  to 
be  devoured  by  others.  The  Papist  adores  the  God 
whom  he  eats,  and  eats  the  God  whom  he  adores. 
This  divinity  is  tasted,  masticated  and  swallowed, 
and,  accidents  excepted,  digested.  The  eating  of  the 
sacramental  elements,  if  transubstantiation  be  true, 
makes  "the  communicant  the  rankest  cannibal.  He 
rivals  the  polite  Indian,  who  eats  the  quivering  limbs 
and  drinks  the  flowing  blood  of  the  enemy.  The 
Papist  even  exceeds  the  Indian  in  grossness.  The 
cannibals  of  America  and  New  Zealand  swallow  only 
the  mangled  remains  of  an  enemy,  and  would’ shud¬ 
der  at  the  idea  of  devouring  any  other  human  flesh  ; 
but  the  partizans  of  Romanism  glut  themselves  with 
the  flesh  and  blood  of  a  friend.  The  Indian  only  eats 
the  dead;  while  the  papist,  with  more  shocking  fero¬ 
city,  devours  the  living.  The  Indian  eats  man  of 
mortal  mould  on  earth ;  the  Papist  eats  God-man  as 
he  exists  exalted,  immortal  and  glorious  in  the  heav¬ 
ens.  The  Egyptians  worshipped  sheep,  oxen,  garlic, 
onions ;  but  even  these  deluded  votaries  of  idolatry 


310 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


and  superstition  abstained  from  eating  the  objects  of 
their  adoration.  The  believer  in  the  corporeal  pres¬ 
ence,  at  once  worships  and  swallows,  adores  and 
devours  his  deity.  Saturn,  according  to  pagan  myth¬ 
ology,  devoured  his  own  offspring.  Jesus,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Popish  theology,  swallowed  his  own  flesh. 
He  ate  the  sacred  bread  and  drank  the  hallowed  wine 
which  he  administered  to  the  Apostles.  Such  are 
the  horrors  which  follow  in  the  train  of  this  ab¬ 
surdity. 

“This  is  the  light  in  which  the  corporeal  presence 
has  been  held,  not  only  by  Protestants,  but  also  by 
Jews,  Mahometans  and  heathens.  ‘  Christians,’  said 
Crotus  the  Jew,  ‘eat  their  God.’  ‘I  have  travelled 
over  the  world,’  said  Averoes,  the  Arabian  philoso¬ 
pher,  ‘and  seen  many  people  ;  but  none  so  sottish  and 
ridiculous  as  Christians,  who  devour  the  God  whom 
they  worship.’  Cicero  entertained  a  similar  opinion. 
‘Whom,’  says  the  Roman  orator,  ‘do  you  think  so 
demented  as  to  believe  what  he  eats  to  be  God?’ 
Roman  philosophy  shames  Romish  theology  ;  tran¬ 
substantiate  n  accepts  the  Popish  deity  to  be  de¬ 
voured  not  only  by  man,  but  also  by  the  irrational 
animals.  This  divinity  may  yield  a  rich  repast  to 
mice,  rats,  vermin,  worms,  and  every  reptile  that 
crawls  on  the  earth.  ‘  The  smallest  mouse,’  says  Ber¬ 
nard,  ‘sometimes  gnaws  the  species  of  the  bread.’” 

Did  you  ever  hear  anything  more  absurd  ?  I  think 
not.  Would  it  not  be  a  more  reasonable  and  sensi¬ 
ble  kind  of  idolatry  for  one  to  carve  a  little  image 
with  his  own  hands,  as  was  so  felicitously  and  so 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


311 


ridiculously  described  by  Isaiah  the  prophet  in  onr 
Scripture  lesson  :  burn  a  part  of  it  to  get  one’s  dinner, 
and  save  the  little  image  as  the  object  of  one's  wor¬ 
ship?  And  yet  this  idolatry  of  the  “mass”  is  per¬ 
formed  every  Lord’s  Day  once,  twice,  or  thrice,  in 
every  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  this  city,  and  the 
people  are  all  taught  just  exactly  this  ! 

I  have  one  more  point  to  sustain,  just  before  I 
close,  and  as  you  have  heard  me  so  kindly  hereto¬ 
fore,  I  will  now  bring  that  to  your  attention. 

III.  Not  only  do  the  Roman  Catholics  worship 
the  “mass,”  but  they  worship  the  Pope  as  God  ;  they 
call  him  God.  “The  sainted  Bernard  affirms,  that  no 
one,  except  God,  is  like  the  Pope,  either  in  heaven  or 
on  earth.  The  name  and  the  works  of  God  have 
been  appropriated  to  the  Pope  by  theologians,  can¬ 
onists,  popes  and  councils.  Gratian,  Pithou,  Du- 
ram,  Jacobatius,  Musso,  Gibert,  Gregory,  Nicholas, 
Innocent,  the  Canon  Law,  and  the  Lateran  Council 
have  complimented  His  Holiness  with  the  name  of 
Deity,  or  bestowed  on  him  the  Vicegerency  of  Plea- 
ven.  On  the  authority  of  the  Canon  Law,  they  style 
the  pontiff  the  Almighty’s  vicegerent,  who  occupies 
the  place  not  of  a  mere  man,  but  of  the  true  God. 
According  to  Gregory  II.,  ‘the  whole  Western  nations 
reckoned  Peter  a  terrestrial  God,’  and  the  Roman 
pontiff'  of  course  succeeds  to  the  title  and  estate. 
‘The  Emperor  Constantine,’  says  Nicholas  I.,  ‘con¬ 
ferred  the  title  of  God  on  the  Pope.  He,  therefore, 
being  God,  cannot  be  judged  by  man.’  According 
to  Pope  Innocent  III.,  the  Pope  holds  the  place  of 


312 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


the  true  God.  The  Canon  Law,  in  the  gloss,  denomi¬ 
nates  the  Roman  hierarch  ‘Our  Lord  God.’  Mar- 
cellus,  in  the  Lateran  Council  and  with  its  full  appro¬ 
bation,  called  Julius,  ‘God  on  earth.’  This  was  the  act 
of  the  General  Council,  and  therefore,  in  the  Papacy, 
counted  as  the  decision  of  infallibility.”  (Edgar,  p. 
157.) 

Pope  Sixtus  IY.  placed  on  a  triumphal  arch, 
erected  on  the  bridge  of  St.  Angelo,  an  inscription  in 
which  he  calls  himself  God.  On  page  331  of  this 
book  of  Montagu  I  find  the  following  statement  of 
that  fact :  After  having  given  us  some  Latin  concern¬ 
ing  what  the  Pope  did  that  I  dare  not  translate  in 
this  presence,  he  says:  “He  set  himself  up  as  a 
god.  On  the  triumphal  arch,  erected  to  his  honor 
by  his  creatures,  on  the  bridge  of  St.  Angelo  in 
Rome,  these  lines  were  inscribed  : — - 

‘Thy  words  an  oracle  which  all  obey : 

That  thou  art  God  on  earth  we  truly  say.’ 

This  horrible  man  hired  assassins  to  kill  the  Prince 
de  Medici  while  at  mass,  and  the  elevation  of  the 
host  was  the  preconcerted  signal  for  the  murderers  to 
strike  with  their  poniards.  He,  moreover,  enriched 
himself  by  imposing  a  tax  on  the  inhabitants  of 
brothels ;  and  to  increase  his  exchequer  he  encour¬ 
aged  their  multiplication ;  so  that,  at  last,  Rome 
was  said  to  be  one  vast,  brothel — a  veritable 
mother  of  harlots.”  And  yet,  at  this  day,  not  one 
of  all  the  Romish  theologians,  priests,  bishops  or 
Popes,  dares  to  deny  infallibility  to  this  man  ;  and 
he  is  canonized  as  infallible,  like  God  himself. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


313 


If  you  have  never  heard  of  blasphemy,  if  you 
have  never  heard  of  idolatry,  of  paganism,  in  its 
lowest,  most  abominable  and  accursed  form  before, 
you  have  heard  it  to-night,  from  Romish  Popes  and 
theologians.  The  works  and  attributes  of  God  are 
attributed  to  the  Pope.  “The  works  as  well  as  the 
name  of  God  have  been  ascribed  to  the  Pope,  by  In¬ 
nocent,  Jacobatius,  Durand,  Detius,  Lanier,  the 
Canon  Law  and  the  Late  ran  Council.  ‘The  Pope 
and  the  Lord/  in  the  statement  of  Innocent,  Jacoba¬ 
tius  and  Detius,  ‘form  the  same  tribunal ;  so  that,  sin 
excepted,  the  Pope  can  do  nearly  all  that  God  can 
do.’  Jacobatius,  in  his  modesty,  uses  the  qualifying 
expression  ‘nearly,’  which  Detius,  with  more  effron¬ 
tery,  rejects  as  unnecessary.  ‘The  pontiff,’  says 
Jacobatius  and  Durand,  ‘possesses  a  plenitude  of 
power,  and  none  dare  say  to  him,  any  more  than  to 
God,  ‘Lord,  what  doest  thou?’  He  can  change  the 
nature  of  things,  and  make  nothing  out  of  something, 
and  something  out  of  nothing.’  The  same  is  found, 
in  all  its  absurdity,  in  the  Canon  Law,  which  attri¬ 
butes  to  the  Pope  the  irresponsibility  of  the  Creator, 
‘the  divine  power  of  performing  the  works  of  God, 
and  making  something  out  of  nothing.’  The  Pope, 
according  to  Lanier,  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  has  ‘the 
power  of  dispensing  with  all  laws,  and  the  same 
authority  as  the  Lord.’  An  Archbishop,  in  the  Lat¬ 
eral!  Synod,  called  Julius,  ‘Prince  of  the  world  ;’  and 
another  orator  styled  Leo,  ‘The  possessor  of  all  power 
in  heaven  and  on  earth,  to  preside  over  all  countries 
of  the  globe.’  This  blasphemy,  the  holy,  unerring 


314 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Roman  Council  heard  without  any  disapprobation,, 
and  the  pontiff  with  unmingled  complacency.  Some 
of  the  Popes,’  says  Coquille,  ‘have  allowed  them¬ 
selves  to  be  called  omnipotent.’  Others  make  the- 
Pope  superior  to  God.  According  to  Cardinal  Zaba- 
rella,  ‘The  pontiffs,  in  their  arrogance,  assume  the 
accomplishment  of  all  they  please,  even  unlawful 
things  ;  and  thus  raise  their  power  above  the  Lord 
God.’  The  Canon  Law  declares  that  ‘The  Pope,  in 
the  plenitude  of  his  power,  is  above  God,  can 
change  the  substantial  nature  of  things,  and  transfer 
unlawful  into  lawful.’  Bellarmine’s  statement  is  of  a 
similar  kind.  The  Cardinal  affirms  that  the  Pope  can 
transubstantiate  sin  into  duty,  and  duty  into  sin. 
‘He  can,’  says  the  Canon  Law,  ‘dispense  with  right/ 
Stephen,  Archbishop  of  Petraca,  declared  in  the 
Council  of  the  Lateran,  that  Leo  ‘possessed  power 
above  all  powers,  both  in  heaven  and  in  earth.’  This 
brazen  blasphemy  passed  in  a  General  Council,  and  is, 
therefore,  stamped  with  the  seal  of  Roman  infalli¬ 
bility.”  (Edgar’s  “Variations,”  Chap.  IV.) 

I  am  going  to  close  my  sermon  to-night  with  a 
little  revelation  made  by  a  Roman  Catholic  saint. 
This  Romish  saint  was  a  woman,  and  her  name  was 
Bridget.  There  are  a  great  many  Roman  Catholic 
saints  of  that  name,  I  suppose;  but  not  all  of 
them  are  deserving  of  the  canonization  which  this 
Saint  Bridget  got.  She  was  said  to  be  an  inspired 
woman.  She  said  a  great  many  things,  about  the 
year  1360,  that  caused  her  to  be  consecrated  a  saint 
in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Some  of  the  things 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


315 


she  said  I  cannot  a^ree  with  ;  but  the  following  I  think 
I  can  agree  with  fully.  Saint  Bridget  says:  “The 
Pope  is  a  murderer  of  souls.  He  destroys  the  flock 
of  Christ,  and  fleeces  it.  More  savage  is  he  than 
Judas,  and  more  unjust  than  Pilate,  and  worse  and 
more  wicked  than  Lucifer.  He  has  exchanged  all 
the  ten  commandments  of  God  for  this  single  one  of 
his  own  :  ‘Give  me  money,  money,  money  !’  ”(I  think* 
St.  Bridget  had  it  right.)  “The  Pope,  with  his  clergy, 
are  the  forerunners  of  anti-Christ,  rather  than  the 
servants  of  Christ.  The  Pope’s  court  on  earth  plun¬ 
ders  the  heavenly  court  of  Christ.  The  clergy  never 
read  the  Book  of  God ;  but  they  are  ever  studying 
the  book  of  the  world.  For  them  the  wisdom  of 
God  is  reputed  to  be  but  folly,  and  the  salvation  of 
souls  a  mere  fable.”  She  adds:  “I  once  loved 
priests  more  than  men  and  even  angels,  but  now  they 
disgust  me  more  than  all  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and 
all  the  devils,  too.  The  kiss  of  peace  of  those  forni¬ 
cating  priests  is  the  kiss  of  Judas  when  he  betrayed 
our  Lord.”  (Those  were  awkward  words  for  a  saint 
and  prophetess  to  have  used.)  Cardinal  Cajetan 
tried  to  escape  from  it,  by  observing  that  Bridget  was 
canonized  during  the  great  schism  of  the  West,  when 
there  was  no  undoubted  Pope,  that  is,  no  Pope 
at  all,  according  to  the  maxim,  ‘A  doubtful  Pope  is 
no  Pope.’  The  Jesuit  Cardinal  Bellarmine  tells  us> 
that  the  Pope’s  canonizations  are  doubtful  and  sub¬ 
ject  to  error.  Perhaps  that  was  the  reason  why 
Pius  V.,  who  bribed  Ridolfi  to  assassinate  Queen 
Elizabeth,  was  canonized.  But  here  again  we  get 


316 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


into  difficulty.  The  Pope’s  canonizations  are  sub¬ 
ject  to  error;  but  Cardinal  Manning,  in  his  “True 
Story  of  the  Vatican  Council,”  p.  81),  positively  asserts 
that  the  canonization  of  saints  comes  under  the  head 
of  “faith  and  morals  in  all  which  cases  the  Pope’s 
judgment  is  infallible,  they  say.  Putting  the  two 
Cardinals  together,  we  get  this  result :  The  Pope’s 
infallibility  is  fallible  and  subject  to  error.  To  make 
matters  worse,  Cardinal  Newman,  in  his  preface  of 
1887  to  his  “Via  Media,”  p.  84,  says  of  canonization, 
<  The  infallibility  of  the  Church  must  certainly  extend 
to  this  solemn  and  public  act,  canonization  ;  and  that 
because  on  so  serious  a  matter,  affecting  the  worship 
of  the  faithful,  .  .  .  the  Church,  that  is,  the  Pope, 
must  be  infallible.’ 

“So  then,  the  canonization  of  Bridget  was  infallible, 
and  her  revelations  were  authentic  and  true  ;  and, 
therefore,  it  follows,  that  the  Pope  is  a  murderer, 
and  more  savage  than  Judas,  and  more  unjust  than 
Pilate,  and  that  he  has  exchanged  all  God’s  Ten 
Commandments  for  this  one  of  his  own — ‘Give  me 
money,  money,  money.’”  (  Montagu,  pp.  305-6.  ) 

I  am  glad  St.  Bridget  was  canonized.  There  are 
some  Romish  saints  in  whom  I  believe,  and  St.  Bridget 
in  just  so  far,  is  one  of  them.  Thus  by  Rome,  truth 
is  mingled  with  contradictions,  follies,  irrationalities, 
absurdities,  things  ridiculous,  contemptible,  disgust- 
ingand  disgraceful.  And  this  is  the  religion  that  is 

O  O  O 

to  be  taught  in  “godly”  schools!  and  this  is  what 
we  are  to  have  substituted  for  the  “  godlessness”  of 
New  England  education  !  ! 

C 


Sermon  XL 


SHALL  ROMANISM  TEACH  A  PAGAN  MORALITY  TO 

AMERICAN  YOUTH  ? 

You  will  find  our  text  exactly  where  you  found  it 
last  Sabbath  evening,  the  first  three  of  the  Ten 
Commandments,  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  the  tenth 
chapter : 

44  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me. 

4*  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image, 
or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above, 
or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water 
under  the  earth.  Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thy¬ 
self  to  them,  nor  serve  them  ;  for  I,  the  Lord,  thy 
God,  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generation  of  them  that  hate  me,  and  showing  mercy 
unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me  and  keep  my 
commandments. 

44  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  in  vain  ;  for  the  Lord  will  not  hold  him  guilt¬ 
less  that  taketh  his  name  in  vain.” 

The  pagan  idolators,  of  whom  we  spoke  on  last 
Sabbath  evening,  added  to  the  list  of  their  gods  who 
represented  men,  goddesses  also,  or  women  gods ;  so 
that  every  idolatrous  cult  in  the  world  has  female 


318 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


divinities,  as  well  as  male.  The  Egyptians  had  Isis, 
as  well  as  Osiris ;  the  Phoenicians  Astarte,  or  Ash- 
taroth,  as  well  as  Baal;  the  Greeks,  Hera,  as  well  as 
Zeus;  the  Romans,  Jimo,  as  well  as  Jupiter.  They 
had  many  other  female  gods  besides  these  chiefest 
ones  that  I  have  named,  too  many  to  mention.  The 
Romans,  who  in  the  great  city  of  Rome  had  the  seat 
of  their  empire  and  their  most  splendid  temples, 
worshipped  not  only  Juno,  but  Venus,  Fortuna, 
Ceres  and  many  others,  who  received  almost  equal 
adoration  with  the  first  named.  The  descriptive 
names  by  which  these  goddesses  were  called,  were 
almost  the  same  in  all  lands.  The  various  peoples 
spoke  of  them  as  “Queen  of  Heaven,”  “  the  mother 
of  gods,”  or  “mother  of  God,”  “the  mediatrix 
between  God  and  man.”  They  characterized  them 
as  “defenders,”  “protector,”  “solicitor”  or  “plead¬ 
ers”  for  human  welfare. 

On  the  very  ground  where  the  goddesses  were  wor¬ 
shipped,  and  before  the  people  had  forgotten  the 
forms  of  idolatry  that  were  so  persistent  in  their 
national  history,  there  sprang  up  a  corrupt  form  of 
Christianity,  that  put  in  place  of  these  goddesses, 
^especially  the  chiefest  of  them,  a  wholly  imaginary 
beino;,  suggested  by  a  historical  character,  unlike  all 
the  creatures  of  her  sex,  and  having  the  idolatrous 
names  that  were  applied  to  the  old  heathen  god¬ 
desses,  under  the  primary  name  of  The  Virgin  Mary. 
She,  too,  is  called  by  her  worshippers  the  “  Queen 
of  heaven,”  as  was  the  Phoenician  Astarte ;  she  is 
called  the  “  mother  of  God,”  as  was  the  Egyptian 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


319 


Isis  ;  she  is  known  as  the  mediatrix  between  God, 
the  great  God,  and  men,  as  was  Fortuna,  the  god 
dess  of  fortune  ;  she  is  addressed  as  the  mother  of 
love,  as  was  Venus  of  the  Romans,  and  the  Aphro¬ 
dite  of  the  Greeks.  The  ordinary  Protestant,  little 
informed  of  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  who  is 
known  by  all  these  names,  can  hardly  conceive  of 
the  prominence  that  she  has  in  the  Romish  ritual. 
To  her  they  offer  prayer,  adoration  and  devotion  ;  to 
her  they  erect  the  most  splendid  of  their  churches 
and  temples  of  worship  ;  to  her  they  consecrate  their 
most  sacred  shrines  ;  to  her  they  raise  the  most 
costly  and  splendid  images,  which  images  they  adorn 
with  richest  and  almost  royal  apparel ;  the  prayers 
to  her  are  the  most  popular  in  the  Romish  Church  ; 
the  “  Rosary  of  Mary,”  as  it  is  called,  is  their  favorite 
act  of  devotion.  And  they  so  fill  the  horizon  of  the 
Romish  mind  with  Mary,  that  after  you  have  trav¬ 
elled  in  Roman  Catholic  countries,  as  I  have  done, 
you  come  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  Mary  has 
a  very  much  larger  place  in  the  thought  of  a  Roman 
Catholic  than  is  given  to  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Protestant  mind,  accustomed  to  a  generous 
sentiment  toward  all  religions,  (for  tolerance  is  the 
law  of  Protestantism),  is  accustomed  to  regard  the 
worship  of  The  Virgin  Mary  in  a  somewhat  esthetic 
and  sentimental  light.  We  are  wont  to  sav,  that  to 
bring  into  the  barbarous  times  of  the  early  ages  the 
idea  of  a  woman,  pure,  good  and  elevated,  who 
should  take  the  place  of  the  cruel  gods,  the  thoughts 
of  whom  debased  the  minds  of  the  people,  was  a  very 


320 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


lmppy  idea,  and  mast  have  exerted  a  softening, 
genial,  and  gracious  influence  upon  the  minds  of 
those  who  were  taught  thus  to  reverence  and  adore 
her. 

This  kindly  sentiment  toward  Romish  idolatry 
is  not  warranted  by  the  facts  of  history.  For 
the  worship  of  the  goddesses  of  the  pagans  was 
always  attended  with  the  worst  obscenity,  the 
utmost  vice,  and  the  most  abominable  rites.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  worship  of  the  man-gods  of  the  Egyp¬ 
tian,  Phoenician,  Grecian  or  Roman  that  can  be  com¬ 
pared  for  abominableness  with  the  worship  of  their 
woman  gods  :  and  while  sentiment  may  suggest  to 
you  that  the  elevation  of  a  woman  to  the  high  plat¬ 
form  which  The  Virgin  Mary  is  occupying  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  may  have  a  happy  and 
tender  effect  upon  the  popular  mind,  you  must 
remember  that  history  is  against  you ;  and  while 
Protestantism  teaches  us  to  cherish  the  most  elevated 
sentiment  toward  noble  and  pure  womanhood, 
woman  viorship  has  always  been  the  fruitful  source 
of  the  greatest  abominations  that  ever  afflicted  the 
world.  Montague  says,  that  Mariolatry ,  in  the  Roman 
Church,  has  always  flourished  most  in  times  of  the 
greatest  immorality  and  wickedness.  When,  there¬ 
fore,  The  Virgin  Mary  (not  the  real  virgin  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  not  the  maid  of  Nazareth  who  wel¬ 
comed  the  message  of  her  Lord,  andwho,  with  human 
infirmity  and  frailty,  herself  doubted  the  Messiali- 
ship  of  her  Son,  and  afterward  finished  her  life  in 
quiet  with  John,  (the  beloved  apostle  as  we  suppose) — 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


321 


when  the  Virgin  Mary  of  Roman  Catholic  worship, 
who  is  made  up  of  myth  and  legend,  imagination  and 
superstition  unwarranted  by  history,  is  elevated  to 
divinity  in  the  minds  of  Roman  Catholics,  there  are 
very  many  things  expressed  and  implied  connected 
with  her  worship  that  have  the  flavor  of  idolatry  in 
its  worst  forms. 

Among  the  nameable  things,  they  say  of  her  that 
she  was  immaculate  in  her  conception  ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  she  had  no  taint  of  original  sin  when  she  was 
born  of  her  mother.  They  say  also,  that  she  was 
perpetually  a  virgin  ;  that  she  had  no  other  children 
than  Jesus  Christ ;  although  the  Bible  says  differently. 
They  say,  that  she  was  carried  up  to  heaven  without 
going  through  the  process  of  death  and  decay  as  we 
go  through  it,  and  glorify  in  art  this  alleged  “  Assump¬ 
tion  of  the  Virgin.”  The  immaculate  conception  ot 
the  Virgin  Mary,  which  takes  her  out  of  the  ranks  of 
those  tainted  with  original  sin,  is  a  dogma  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  which  they  must  believe 
under  penalty  of  loss  of  salvation. 

On  the  eighth  day  of  December,  1854,  Pope  Pius 
IX.  sat  under  the  dome  of  St.  Peter’s,  with  a  triple 
crown,  blazing  with  jewels,  on  his  head,  and  with  the 
splendid  apparel  of  the  Pope  upon  his  shoulders. 
Around  him  knelt  five  hundred  prelates  and  digni¬ 
taries  of  the  church ;  before  him  were  ten  thousand 
of  the  faithful ;  and  in  the  great  square  outside  fully 
forty  thousand  more.  As  they  solemnly  waited  in 
this  presence,  a  cardinal  arose,  and  advancing  toward 
the  Pope,  said  slowly  :  “  Father,  tell  us  if  we  shall 


322 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


believe  and  teach  that  The  Virgin  Mary  was  immacu¬ 
late  in  her  conception  ;  ”  and  the  Pope  solemnly 
'answered,  “We  do  not  know.  Let  us  inquire  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.”  And  all  joined  to  sing,  “  Come, 
Holy  Spirit.”  Then  the  cardinal  again  arose,  and 
advancing  as  before,  asked  the  same  question,  and 
the  Pope  answered  :  “We  do  not  know  now.  Let 
us  ask  the  Holy  Spirit.”  And  once  more  the  assem¬ 
bled  thousands  sang,  “  Come,  Holy  Spirit.”  When 
for  the  third  time,  in  all  the  pomp  and  magnificence  of 
ceremony,  the  cardinal  advanced,  the  Pope  answered 
to  the  question,  “  Shall  we  believe  and  teach  that  The 
Virgin  Mary  was  immaculate  in  her  conception?” 
“  Yes,  Yes.  The  Virgin  Mary  was  immaculate  in 
her  conception.  So  believe  and  teach.  There  is  no 
salvation  to  those  who  deny  this  teaching.”  And 
it  was  then  proclaimed  a  dogma  of  the  Church. 

So,  in  contradiction  of  the  opinions  of  many 
of  the  most  distinguished  fathers  of  the  Church, 
after  long  years  of  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
most  superstitious  wing,  contrary  to  sound  reason, 
contrary  to  truth,  and  in  contradiction  of  the 
claim  of  the  Church  which  savs  it  never 
changes,  in  the  year  1854  was  made  a  new 
closrma,  which  thousands  of  Roman  Catholics  do  not 
believe,  but  which  they  were  told  they  must  believe 
on  pain  of  the  displeasure  of  the  Church  and  the 
penalties  which  are  inflicted  on  heresy. 

I  proceed  now  to  show  you  that  The  Virgin  Mary 
is  a  veritable  idol  goddess,  in  the  worship  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church ;  but  as  I  pass,  I  wish  to  vin- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


323 


dieate  in  a  few  words  the  authorities  that  I  shall 
quote.  The  only  embarrassment  which  I  meet,  is  the 
abundance  of  authorities  and  the  fulness  of  their  testi¬ 
mony.  Every  night  when  I  have  spoken  to  you,  the 
time  has  expired  before  I  could  give  you  all  that  I 
bad  selected  bearing  on  the  subject  under  discussion. 
But  some  have  said  to  me,  That  certain  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics  deny  that  the  authorities  which  you  bring  for- 
word  are  truthful  in  their  statements.  For  instance, 
when  you  bring  forward  St.  Liguori,  they  say,  either 
that  he  did  not  say  this  :  or  else,  that  St.  Liguori  has 
no  authority.  You  remember  that  this  distinguished 
saint  is  the  one  from  whom  I  read  so  freely  in  regard 
to  theft,  lying,  and  sundry  other  things,  a  few 
nights  since.  I  think  I  fully  vindicate  his  right  to 
speak  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  by  the  fact 
that  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  Rites,  of  Rome,  after 
twenty  years’  examination  of  the  works  of  St. 

Liguori,  said,  that  there  was  “  not  one  word  in  all  his 

7  7 

writings  that  could  justly  be  found  fault  with.” 
In  1852,  an  edition  of  the  “  Glories  of  Mary,”  by  St. 
Liguori,  appeared  with  the  sanction  of  Cardinal 
Wiseman  of  England,  and  the  eminent  Cardinal 
Manning,  in  1868,  spoke  in  the  highest  terms  of 
approval  of  this  authority. 

The  kind  of  testimony  that  I  bring  to  you  here  is 
the  kind  of  testimony  that  I  think  would  stand  before 
a  jury  ;  and  if  Roman  Catholics,  or  any  others,  deny 
or  seriously  doubt  it,  I  will  meet  them  with  the  fol¬ 
lowing  proposition  :  Let  us  enlarge  this  jury  until  it 
numbers  two  thousand  people.  The  Roman  Catholics 


324 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


shall  select  one  thousand,  and  I  will  select  one 
thousand,  under  mutually  fair  conditions.  I  will  meet 
any  priest  of  Rome  of  the  city  of  Worcester,  or  from 
any  other  part  of  the  country,  on  the  public  platform, 
in  Mechanics  Hall.  I  will  present  the  authorities 
for  sustaining  every  proposition  which  I  have  made 
here.  If  they  can  refute  them,  or  show  that  they  are 
unreliable,  I  will  withdraw  them,  provided  that  they 
on  their  part  agree,  that  if  I  can  substantiate  my 
statements  by  full  proof,  they  will  accept  them,  and 
confess  error. 

I  have  stated  on  this  platform  at  least  a  hundred 
propositions.  I  began  by  stating,  concerning  the 
Jesuits,  what  they  were,  and  what  they  do.  I  am 
prepared  to  make  good  all  that  I  have  stated.  In 
my  third  discourse,  I  said  that  the  Pope  was  the 
enemy  of  civil  and  religious  freedom,  and  substan¬ 
tiated  that  by  various  testimonies.  I  am  prepared  to 
bring  forward  those  theses  and  stand  by  them  until 
they  are  refuted.  I  then  set  forth  in  at  least  twenty 
particulars  that  Romanism  was  contrary  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  I  do 
not  retract  one  word  of  that  argument,  and  am  will¬ 
ing  to  have  any  representative  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  take  up  these  statements  before  a  selected 
audience  for  the  purpose  of  fairly  refuting  the  argu¬ 
ment.  I  then,  in  three  sermons,  set  forth  that  the 
purpose  of  Romanism  was  to  destroy  our  public 
schools.  Those  sermons  stand  unimpeached,  until 
they  can  be  contradicted  bv  somethin"  more  than  the 
round  assertion  that  my  statements  are  not  true. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


325 


And  what  I  say  about  the  paganism  of  Rome  I  am 
prepared  also  to  vindicate,  by  adducing  still  more 
copious  proofs,  in  any  presence,  whether  before  a  con¬ 
gregation  of  Worcester,  or  the  just  bar  of  the  eternal 
God.  Let  no  man  therefore  say  that  the  authorities 
which  I  quote  are  not  reliable,  unless  he  knows  it ; 
and  if  he  knows  it,  let  him  so  say  it  that  I  may  have 
the  benefit  of  his  proofs.  For  I  say  to  you,  my 
friends,  here  to-night,  that  mere  victory  in  an  intel¬ 
lectual  struggle  has  never  been  dear  to  me.  Truth 
is  more  precious  than  rubies  ;  the  triumph  of  truth 
is  all  that  I  seek.  If  I  have  it  not,  let  me  have  it ; 
and  if  I  have  it,  let  no  man  wrest  it  from  me. 
Truth,  truth  I  want !  Not  arrogance,  not  presump¬ 
tion,  not  pretence,  not  false  history,  not  round 
denial !  Truth  let  us  have  ;  and  if  that  truth  cuts 
away  the  foundation  of  Protestantism,  let  us  thereby 
£et  nearer  to  the  Rock  of  Ages  ;  if  it  demolishes  the 
pretences  of  Romanism  and  sinks  the  system,  let  us 
man  the  life-boat  to  save  every  man  of  them,  by  hold- 
ins:  out  the  truth  of  God. 

And  now,  in  harmony  with  this  purpose,  I  proceed 
to  show  that  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the 
Romish  Church  is  idolatrous  ;  that  she  is  really  wor¬ 
shipped  as  a  divine  being  with  divine  attributes, 
according  to  the  consent  and  statements  of  Popes,  of 
cardinals,  of  saints,  and  of  doctors  of  theology. 

1.  My  first  proposition  is,  that  they  consider  and 
call  The  Virgin  Mary  divine,  giving  her  the  attri¬ 
butes  of  Jehovah.  Pardon  me  if  I  read  the  proofs. 
I  wish  I  were  a  better  reader,  but  you  are  such  good 


326 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


listeners  that  it  takes  away  the  half  of  my  embarrass¬ 
ment. 

1.  Divine  powers,  and  powers  above  divine,  are 
accorded  to  Mary.  St.  Bernardinus  Senensis  offers 
to  ns  the  following,  in  one  of  his  sermons,  (and  a 
saint  becomes  a  saint  because  he  receives  the  sanc¬ 
tion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church)  :  “In  order  to 
become  the  mother  of  God,  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary 
had  to  be  raised  to  an  equality  with  the  Trinity,  so  to 
speak,  by  being  made  infinite  in  perfections  and 
graces ,  an  equality  which  no  creature  ever  obtained. 
He  who  was  himself  God,  served,  and  was  subject  to 
His  mother  on  earth.  Yes,  this  is  true.  All  things 
are  subject  to  the  empire  of  the  Virgin  ;  even  God 
Himself  is  subject  to  her.”  Proceeding  further,  he 
says:  “The  blessed  Virgin,  all  alone,  did  more  for 
God,  or  at  least  as  much,  so  to  speak,  as  God  did  for 
the  whole  human  race.  Rendering,  then,  to  each  their 
due,  (that  is  to  say,  what  God  did  for  man,  and 
what  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary  did  for  God,)  you  will 
perceive  that  Mary  did  more  for  God  than  God  did 
for  man."  Again  he  says  :  “  There  is  no  grace  comes 
from  heaven  to  us,  unless  The  Virgin  Mary  dis¬ 
penses  it  to  us.  For  this  office  she,  and  she  alone, 
obtained  of  God  from  all  eternity;  as  is  testified  by 
Proverbs  8  :  23  :  ‘I  was  set  up  from  everlasting ;  * 
that  is,  as  the  dispenser  of  all  heavenly  gifts.” 

2.  It  is  also  distinctly  stated  by  authorities  of 
the  Church  that  The  Virgin  Mary  i  's  omnipotent ; 
where  it  is  said  :  “  The  most  blessed  Virgin  is  the 
Empress,  because  she  is  the  wife  of  the  eternal 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


327 


Emperor,  of  whom  it  was  said  4  He  that  hath  the 
Bride  is  the  Bridegroom. Further:  “  Since  the 
blessed  Virgin  is  the  mother  of  God,  and  God  is  her 
son  ;  and  since  every  son  is  by  nature  inferior  to  his 
mother,  and  is  her  subject,  and  the  mother  has  the 
pre-eminence  and  is  superior  to  and  above  her  son ; 
it  follows  that  the  blessed  Virgin  is  superior  to  and 
above  God ,  and  God  is  her  subject,  because  of  the 
humanity  which  He  derived  from  her.”  This  was 
Bernardinus  de  Bustis,  who  flourished  about  the  year 
1480,  and  who  was  a  Franciscan  monk. 

3.  The  Virgin  Mary  is  said  to  be  possessed  of 
infinite  power.  It  certainly  was  a  great  privilege 
and  most  singular  grace  that  was  conferred  upon  her, 
they  say  ;  wfliile  Laurentius  Chrysogonus  and  a  mod¬ 
ern  saint  and  doctor  of  the  Homan  Church  (the 
places  in  their  works  are  given)  say  the  following  : 
“To  the  most  holy  Virgin  all  things  are  possible, 
because  of  the  most  high  dignity  of  her  Divine 
maternity,  which  brought  her  an  infinite  poiver  and 
empire  in  the  things  of  all  the  world.”  This  is  con¬ 
tinued  and  amplified  ;  but  the  expression  “infinite 
power  ”  fully  vindicates  my  statement  that  they 
accredit  her  with  infinite  power. 

4.  They,  in  so  many  words,  declare  that  she  is 
eternal ;  as,  for  instance,  when  it  is  said  by  St.  Sabas 
the  abbot :  “  O,  virgin-mother  of  God  ;  of  thee  alone 
it  has  been  proved  to  the  vmrld  that  thou  wast  pure 
from  all  eternity .”  And  this  is  very  much  like  an 
Orphic  ode  from  the  heathen  poets  to  heathen  divin¬ 
ities,  and  reminds  the  classical  scholar  of  such. 


328 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


They  pay  to  her  divine  honors,  and  think  her  worthy 
of  those  honors.  This  I  shall  also  so  amply  prove  in 
further  quotations,  that  several  quotations  I  had 
intended  here  to  employ  I  will  omit. 

5.  She  is  called  the  “lamb  of  God,”  as  I  will 
read  to  you  now.  Georgius,  the  Archbishop  of 
Yicomedia,  is  quoted  by  Zoller,  a  Roman  Catholic 
historian  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception,  as  saying,  in  the  passage  which  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  addresses  to  the  Virgin  Mary  :  “  0  immacu¬ 
late  Lamb ,  who  wast  taken  up  to  the  feast  of  angels, 
and  fed  with  angels’  food  :  O  immaculate  Lamb, 
victim  acceptable  to  God,  who  wast  offered  in  God’s 
temple,  and  from  whom  was  born  that  Lamb  of  God 
who  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world  :  O  Lamb 
verily  immaculate,  more  pleasing  than  every  sacri¬ 
fice,  who  wast  sacrificed  to  the  Creator,  not  as  an 
offering  rendered  acceptable  by  God,  but  as  accept¬ 
able  through  the  excellence  of  her  purity.” 

6.  She  is  also  called  the  wife  of  Christ.  This 
passage  I  will  read  from  one  of  the  saints  already 
quoted,  St.  Sabas,  the  abbot,  and  this  is  only  one  of 
many  passages  teaching  us  the  same  :  “  From  thee, 
Mary,  Christ’s  only  parent,  did  thy  husband  come 
forth  —  thou  most  pure  lily,  growing  amid  thorns 
and  thistles.” 

7.  She  is  said  to  be  married  to  God  the  Father. 
You  will  see  in  a  moment  that  all  these  are  only  repro¬ 
ductions  of  the  old  heathen  fables.  A  Cardinal  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  Cardinal  Hostiensis  says  : 
“  There  is  a  state  of  marriage  existing  between  God 

O  O 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


329 


.■and  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary,”  (and  the  Latin  phrase 
is  given  here  that  lie  uses)  ;  “  wherefore  it  is 

said :  Lo !  thou  art  fair,  my  love ;  behold  thou 
art  fair ;  thou  hast  dove's  eves  !  ”  As  though  the 
Father  God  ever  said  this  to  the  Virgin  Mary  ! 
“The  Angel  Gabriel  was  sent,”  says  Cardinal  Hos- 
tiensis;  “then  the  contract  was  made  between 
the  parties  by  the  words  :  4  Thou  hast  found  favor 
with  the  Lord,’”  and  so  on. 

Now  if  you  compare  this  with  ancient  myths  you 
will  find  in  it  a  very  remarkable  likeness  to  them. 
The  Egyptian  God  Ivhem,  was  called  Kuh-mut,  the 
husband  of  his  mother.  That  is  identical  with  what 
is  said  about  Christ  and  the  Virgin  Mary.  The 
youngest  ITorus  was  the  son  of  Osiris  and  Isis  (brother 
and  sister),  and  he  too  was  husband  of  his  mother. 
In  Rome,  it  was  Fortuna  and  Jupiter.  So  concerning 
Janus,  he  was  both  the  son  and  husband  of  Cybele. 
In  Asia,  it  was  Cybele  and  Deioius.  In  Greece, 
Cybele  was  called  Ceres,  the  great  mother;  also 
Domina,  or  Our  Lady ;  and  she  was  represented 
holding  a  babe.  In  India,  we  find  the  mother  and 
child  as  Isi  or  Parvati  and  Iswara.  We  also  find 
that  Astarte,  the  Phoenician  goddess,  was  said  to  be 
the  wife  of  her  son.  Yet  again,  the  same  strange 
and  awful  blasphemous  statement  is  made,  that  Mary 
is  the  wife  of  God  the  Father  ! 

8.  She  is  also  called  the  sole  mediatrix  ;  that  is, 
the  one  standing  between  God  and  man,  by  whom  all 
favors  can  come  to  this  world.  Let  me  read  to  you 
the  exact  language.  In  St.  Bonaventura’s  writings  it 

o  o  o 


330 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


is  said  :  “  O,  our  Empress”  (this  is  in  a  work  called 
the  “  Crown  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ”),  “  and  Lady  most 
benign,  by  thy  maternal  rights,  command  thy  most 
beloved  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  vouchsafe  to 
turn  our  minds  from  the  love  of  earthly  things,  and 
direct  them  to  heavenly  thoughts.  Since  the  blessed 
Virgin  is  the  advocate  for  sinners,  the  glory  and 
crown  of  the  righteous,  the  wife  of  God,  and  the 
couch  of  the  whole  Trinity  to  lie  upon,  and  the 
most  beautiful  bed  for  the  Son  to  prostrate  himself 
upon,  therefore  sin  had  no  place  in  her.” 

Then  St.  Bonaventura,  in  order  to  carry  out  this  idea 
of  the  divineness  of  the  Virgin,  made  a  paraphrase 
on  the  Psalms  of  David,  in  which  he  puts  her  name 
in  place  of  the  Divine  name  in  every  case,  and  thus 
lauds  and  magnifies  her  as  God.  travestying  the 
Holy  Scriptures  in  order  to  express  the  same.  It 
will  sound  strange  to  you  to  hear  the  Sacred  Word  so 
read  ;  but  let  us  hear  it.  The  language  was  used  in 
the  “  Psalter  of  The  Virgin  Mary,”  and  received  the 
sanction  of  the  Pope.  In  Psalm  109,  for  instance  : 
“The  Lord  said  to  our  Lady:  Come  and  sit,  My 
mother,  on  My  right  hand,  until  I  make  thy  foes  thy 
footstool.”  Psalm  I:  “Blessed  is  the  man  wrho 
lovetli  thy  name,  Virgin  Mary.”  Psalm  II : 
“  Come  unto  her,  all  ye  who  labor  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  she  will  give  rest  and  comfort  unto 
your  souls.  Come  unto  her,  when  in  tribulation, 
and  the  light  of  her  countenance  will  establish  you.” 
Psalm  III  :  “  Our  Lady  !  how  are  they  increased 
that  trouble  me.  But  thou  art  a  shield  for  me ; 


Romanism  and  the  Republic , 


331 


with  thy  power  thou  shalt  pursue  and  scatter  them. 
Have  mercy  upon  me,  O  our  Lady,  and  heal  thou 
my  sickness.”  Psalm  XXX  :  “  Into  thy  hands,  O 
our  Lady,  do  I  commend  my  spirit.” 

Reading  thus  from  this  blasphemous  perversion  of 
God's  word,  I  might  go  on  and  give  passage  after 
passage,  taken  from  that  Psalmody,  by  which  the  Vir¬ 
gin  Mary  is  elevated  by  this  Roman  Catholic  saint  to 
the  place  of’ the  Lord  God.  They  even  corrupt  the 
wonderful  Te  Deum  which  we  sometimes  sins;.  In 
the  Paris  edition  of  1852,  you  find  the  following  as 
standing  for  the  Te  Deum ,  in  place  of  the  familiar  be¬ 
ginning  :  “We  praise  Thee,  O  God  ;  we  acknowledge 
Thee  to  be  the  Lord  ;  ”  “  We  praise  thee,  O  Mary, 

we  acknowledge  thee  to  be  the  Virgin.  All  the 
earth  doth  worship  thee,  the  wife  of  the  Eternal. 
To  thee  all  creatures  continually  do  cry  :  Holy,  holy, 
holy,  Mary,  mother  of  God,  mother  and  virgin.  The 
glorious  company  of  the  apostles  praise  thee,  as  the 
mother  of  their  Creator.”  The  Litany  also  is  adapted 
in  the  same  way. 

Did  you  know  that  these  were  the  sentiments  of 
saints,  popes  and  divines  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  ?  Have  you  thought  that  we  were  surrounded 
by  idolatry  identical  with  the  worship  of  the  ancient 
heathen  goddesses  ?  Had  you  supposed  that  these 
unfortunate  worshipers  were  so  under  the  bond¬ 
age  of  Papal  superstition  that  they  were  standing 
1900  years  behind  this  age,  in  the  dark  of  super¬ 
stition,  and  calling  on  a  human  creature,  deified  as 
the  ancient  pagans  deified  their  heroes  and  heroines,, 


332 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


as  though  she  were  God,  attributing  to  her  divine 
names  and  functions,  making  her  the  equal  of  the 
whole  Trinity  ;  saying  that  her  power  is  infinite,  that 
she  is  eternal,  and  that  she  is  the  sole  sacrifice  for 
human  sin,  and  the  veritable  lamb  of  God?  And 
yet,  this  is  all  taken  from  Roman  Catholic  authorities, 
and  has  been  indorsed,  and  never  protested  against, 
by  this  infallible  church  ! 

II.  Mary  is  worshipped  as  God;  not  only  called 
divine,  but  worshipped  as  God  ;  having  not  only  the 
name  of  God,  but  the  adoration  due  to  God.  Now 
we  know  that  there  is  a  magical  charm,  to  the  En^- 
lish-speaking  peoples,  in  the  name  of  John  Henry 
Newman  —  the  Cardinal  Newman  who  left  the  Ensy 
lish  Church,  and  was  honored  for  his  apostacy  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  with  the  cardinalate. 

1 .  Cardinal  Newman,  unfortunately  plunging  him¬ 
self  into  this  abyss  of  superstiition,  uses  the  follow¬ 
ing  language  concerning  the  Virgin  Marv  :  “There 
was  a  wonder  in  heaven.”  “A  throne  was  seen,  far 
above  all  created  powers,  mediatory,  intercessory;  a 
title  archetypal ;  a  crown  bright  as  the  morning  star  ; 
a  glory  issuing  from  the  eternal  Throne  ;  robes  pure 
as  the  heavens  ;  and  a  sceptre  over  all.  And  who 
was  the  predestined  heir  of  that  majesty?  Who  was 
that  wisdom,  and  what  was  her  name?  ‘The  mother 
of  fair  love,  and  fear,  and  holy  hope,’  ‘exalted  like  a 
palm  tree  in  Engaddi,  and  a  rose  plant  in  Jericho  ;’ 
‘created  from  the  beginning,’  in  God’s  counsel  ;  and 
‘in  Jerusalem  was  her  power?’  The  vision  is  found 
in  the  Apocalypse  :  a  woman  clothed  with  the  sun, 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


333 


and  the  moon  under  her  feet,  and  upon  her  head  a 
crown  of  twelve  stars.  The  votaries  of  Mary  do  not 
exceed  the  true  faith,  unless  the  blasphemers  of  her 
Son  come  up  to  it.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  not 
idolatrous,  unless  Arianism  is  Orthodoxy  !  !  ” 

Thus  speaks  the  chief  dignitary  of  the  Romish 
Church  in  Great  Britain,  in  his  “  Essay  on  Develop¬ 
ment.”  And  this  he  says  after  such  a  panegyric  upon 
the  Maid  of  Nazareth,  who,  if  she  were  alive  and  here 
in  our  midst,  would  deprecate  his  idolatry  as  much 
as  any  one  of  us  can. 

There  was  an  attempt  made  by  some  of  the  Rom¬ 
ish  writers  to  assume  that  the  worship  paid  to  the 
Virgin  Mary  was  different  from  the  worship  paid  to 
God  ;  and  they  had  two  or  three  Greek  words  by 
which  they  described  the  shade  of  difference  between 
the  worship  of  the  Virgin  and  the  martyrs  and  the 
worship  of  God.  They  said  that  the  worship  of  the 
martyrs  was  “ dulia ,”  that  the  worship  of  the  Virgin 
was  “ hyperdulia ,”  that  the  worship  of  God  was 
“Latvia.”  Confusion  onlv  follows  these  words, 
which  have  hardly  a  shadow  of  difference  in  their 
meaning,  and  they  were  pronounced  by  Cardinal 
Bellarmine  totally  unequal  to  the  work  of  preventing 
the  same  worship  being  paid  to  the  images  and  to  the 
Virgin  as  was  paid  to  God  Himself. 

2.  They  worship  the  Virgin  Mary  as  a  goddess. 
In  the  city  of  Lisbon,  Portugal,  there  is  a  church 
dedicated  to  Mary  as  a  goddess,  in  the  following 
words :  “To  the  Virgin,  goddess  of  Loretto,  the 
Italian  race,  devoted  to  her  divinity,  have  dedicated 


334 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


this  temple.”  I  have  seen  kindred  inscriptions  to 
that  on  old  Roman  temples,  where  some  object  of 
their  idolatry  had  received  the  dedication  from  their 
votaries  of  the  palaces  in  which  they  were  worship¬ 
ped.  Here  they  have  spoken  in  no  uncertain  tones, 
and  the  Virgin  of  Loretto,  a  divinity  and  a  goddess, 
has  a  modern  temple  dedicated  to  her,  in  one  of  the 
most  Roman  Catholic  countries  of  the  world  ! 

III.  Mary  is  repeatedly  praised  as  Saviour.  This 
praise  runs  through  nearly  all  that  is  said  of  her,  and 
is  sogenerouslv  given  that  it  does  not  seem  as  though 
there  is  any  necessity  for  any  other  God,  since  she 
fulfills  all  the  functions  of  the  same.  It  is  said,  for 
instance,  in  one  of  the  standard  writers  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  :  “I  and  my  Father  are  one,”  par¬ 
odying  the  same  and  applying  it  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Again,  there  is  a  plate  of  the  crucifixion  with  Mary  at 
the  foot  of  the  Cross,  having  a  sword  in  her  breast, 
and  the  inscription  :  “  Thy  beloved  Son  did  offer  in 
sacrifice  Ilis  flesh  for  us  ;  but  thou  didst  offer  in 
sacrifice  thy  soul, — }rea,  both  thy  body  and  thy  soul.” 
You  see  pictures  of  the  bleeding  heart  of  Mary  in 
Roman  Catholic  book  and  picture  stores,  and  the 
sword  thrust  through  her  heart  indicates,  as  above 
stated,  that  she  suffered  more  than  Jesus;  while  He 
gave  His  body  to  suffer,  she  gave  the  sufferings  of 
her  soul.  She  is  idolatrously  worshipped  :  worshipped 
as  any  one  would  worship  the  supreme  Deity. 

Liguori  had  occasion  to  express  himself  on  the 
Divine  powers  of  Mary  in  the  following  words  (I 
do  not  think  I  will  take  time  to  read  it  all,  but  his 


JRomcin'ism  and  the  Republic. 


335 


“Glories  of  Mary  ”  contains  an  extended  portrayal 
of  her  powers,  some  portions  of  which  are  not  fit  to 
be  repeated.  Suppose  I  tell  the  substance,  without 
reading  it,  to  save  time)  :  Liguori  tells  a  story,  and 
the  incident  is  also  narrated  by  Father  Chiniquy  and 
Hallam  as  a  sample  of  Romish  fable,  displaying  the 
divine  power  of  Mary.  He  says,  that  a  certain  nun, 
becoming  tired  of  her  vows,  forsaking  the  nunnery 
in  which  she  lived,  plunged  into  a  life  of  sin  ;  after  a 
period  of  ten  years,  she  came  back  and  inquired  if 
sister  Beatrice  (meaning  herself)  was  missed  from 
the  nunnery,  and  they  answered:  Oh,  no;  she  had 
never  gone  away  or  been  missed ;  she  was  there,  and 
was  one  of  their  most  devoted  nuns.  And  then  it 
came  to  pass,  says  Liguori,  that  Beatrice  found  out 
that  the  Virgin  Mary,  out  of  love  for  her,  had 
taken  her  place  and  performed  her  duties  for  the 
space  of  ten  years  or  more  ;  whereupon,  of  course, 
she  penitently  enters  the  nunnery  again,  and  becomes 
a  most  devoted  nun. 

There  is  a  similar  fable  told  of  a  young  girl  who 
was  beloved  of  two  men,  and  these  men  contending 
about  her,  in  the  conflict  her  head  was  accidentally 
cut  off  and  thrown  into  a  well.  (Now  it  is  a  great 
misfortune  to  lose  your  head  under  such  circumstan¬ 
ces.)  But  presently  the  head  appeared  on  the  well- 
curb  and  remained  there  for  two  days.  It  desired  to 
confess,  saying :  “  I  was  in  mortal  sin  when  my  life 
was  taken.  I  have  come  to  confess.”  And  after  she 
had  confessed,  and  variously  exhorted  the  people,  I 
suppose  the  head  went  back  into  the  well.  But  St. 


336 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Liguori,  telling  this  as  a  sample  of  Mary’s  power,  says; 
that  the  reason  why  the  murdered  girl  had  this  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  get  out  of  perdition  by  confession  was, 
because  she  had  been  very  faithful  in  her  use  of  the 
rosary  of  Mary  ;  and  Mary,  out  of  her  marvellous  love 
for  her,  undertook  to  save  her  in  this  astonishing 
manner. 

There  are  stories  that  are  not  so  fit  to  be  repeated,, 
in  which  Mary  is  represented  with  very  remarkable 
power  over  her  special  votaries,  and  the  wonders  that 
she  works  are  as  marvellous  as  they  are  fabulous. 

And  these  narrations  are  taught  as  history  b> 
Roman  Catholic  youth.  I  prefer  Swinton’s  History. 

Pope  Sixtus  IV.,  of  whom  I  told  you  on  last  Sunday 
night,  who  erected  a  triumphal  arch  on  the  bridge  of 
St.  Angelo,  on  which  he  called  himself  God,  granted 
to  those  who  prayed  to  the  Virgin  Mary  an  indul¬ 
gence  of  one  hundred  thousand  years.  I  should  say 
that  if  an  indulgence  of  one  hundred  thousand  years 
is  so  easily  obtained,  the  believers  in  Mary  had 
better  bestir  themselves  and  get  as  many  indulgences 
as  they  can.  It  must  be  very  convenient  for  some 
of  them  to  have  a  little  surplus  of  indulgence  to  keep 
them  out  of  purgatorial  fire. 

In  the  prayer-books  of  this  time,  there  is  a  prayer 
to  the  Virgin  Mary  to  which  Pope  Sixtus  IV.  had 
attached  an  indulgence  of  11,000  years  for  all  who 
•should  devoutly  recite  it.  In  a  Dutch  prayer-book 
of  the  beginning  of  the  next  century,  there  is  a  prayer 
to  Mary  which  carries  an  indulgence  of  100,000  years, 
together  with  many  other  such  graces  of  shorter 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


337 


periods.  Some  of  these  indulgences  of  20,000  years 
are  given  to  every  one  who  shall  say  five  Paternosters 
before  such  and  such  an  image,  and  are  full  of  super¬ 
stition.  There  is  one  of  the  Popes  who  granted  an 
indulgence,  Pope  John  XXII.,  (he  was  the  man 
who  cursed  the  Council  of  Constance  and  got  as  good 
as  he  gave,)  that  any  one  who  should  kiss  the  meas¬ 
urement  of  the  Virgin  Mary’s  shoe  ( I  have  not 
learned  how  they  got  that),  was  granted  an  indul¬ 
gence  of  700  years.  I  suppose  in  some  place  they 
have  what  they  allege  to  be  the  measurement  of  this 
sacred  foot,  and  whoever  should  go  to  that  place  and 
kiss  the  proper  spot  should  have  an  indulgence  of 
700  years. 

The  rosary  of  Mary,  says  Dr.  Barnum,  in  his  book, 
is  the  most  popular  of  all  the  forms  of  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  devotion.  That  rosary  has  on  it  15  beads,  and 
every  one  of  these  has  associated  with  it  a  special 
thought  of  prayer.  These  prayers  are  offered  vari¬ 
ously,  with  certain  changes  of  form  and  manner,  to 
the  Holy  Virgin  Mary. 

But  returning  now  to  Liguori.  I  wish  to  read 
to  you  what  he  says  in  his  “  Glories  of  Mary”  con¬ 
cerning  the  excellence  of  this  divinity  that  he  wor¬ 
ships.  I  can  only  read  a  part  of  his  praises  and 
ascriptions.  On  the  fourth  page  of  this  book,  which  is 
put  into  the  hands  of  the  people  as  a  manual  of  devo¬ 
tion  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  which  Father 
Chiniquy  says  he  studied  when  he  was  a  student 
in  Canada,  it  is  said  :  “It  is  the  will  of  God  that  all 
graces  should  come  to  us  by  the  hand  of  Mary.” 


338 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


Page  5  :  “To  reverence  the  Queen  of  Angels  is  to  gain 
'eternal  life.”  Page  8  :  “All  graces  are  dispensed  by 
Mary  $  and  all  who  are  saved,  are  saved  only  by  means 
of  this  Divine  Mother.”  Page  14:  “The  Eternal 
Father  gave  the  office  of  Judge  and  Avenger  to  the 
Son  ;  and  that  of  showing  mercy,  and  relieving  the 
necessitous,  to  the  Mother.”  Page  16  :  “We  believe 
that  she  opens  the  abyss  of  God’s  mercy  to  whomso¬ 
ever  she  will,  when  she  will,  and  in  the  way  she  will ; 
so  that  there  is  no  sinner,  however  great  a  sinner, 
who  is  lost,  if  Mary  protects  him.”  Again,  on  page 
21:  “I  am  thine,  O  Marv  :  save  me.”  Page  34: 
“We  can  say  of  Mary,  that  she  gave  her  only  be¬ 
gotten  Son  to  die  for  us,  when  she  granted  Him 
permission  to  deliver  Himself  up  to  death.” 

On  page  53  :  “  Neither  on  earth,  nor  in  heaven, 
can  I  find  any  one  who  has  more  compassion  for  the 
miserable,  and  who  is  better  able  to  assist  me,  than 
thou  canst,  O  Mary.”  She  is  “the  only  hope  for  sin¬ 
ners,”  it  is  said,  on  page  67,  “for  by  her  help  alone 
can  we  hope  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  Pa^e  67  • 
“He  falls,  and  is  lost,  who  has  not  recourse  to  Marv. 
(Where  are  we  all  going  to?)”  Page  84:  “Hail,  O 
certain  salvation  of  Christians,  .  .  .  and  salvation 
of  the  world.”  Page  85  :  “God  has  placed  the  whole 
price  of  redemption  in  the  hands  of  Mary,  that  she 
may  dispense  it  as  she  will.  Thou,  O  Mary,  art  the 
propitiation  for  the  whole  world.”  Pages  90,  85  : 
“Our  only  city  of  refuge  :  the  only  Advocate  for  sin¬ 
ners  :  the  only  hope  of  sinners.’  And  later:  ‘O, 
our  Lady  in  heaven,  we  have  but  one  Advocate,  and 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


339 


that  is  thyself.”  Page  98  :  “Before  Mary,  there  was 
none  who  could  thus  dare  to  restrain  the  arm  of  God. 
But  now,  if  God  is  angry  with  a  sinner,  and  Mary 
takes  him  under  her  protection,  she  withholds  the 
avenging  arm  of  her  Son,  and  saves  him.”  Page 
105  :  “I  worship  thy  holy  heart :  through  thee  do  I 
hope  for  salvation.”  And  so  on  :  who  knows  when 
it  will  end?  Page  129  :  “The  intercession  of  Mary 
is  ever  necessary  to  salvation.”  Page  128  :  “Mary 
was  made  the  mediatrix  of  our  salvation.”  Page 
132  :  “In  Mary  we  shall  find  life  and  eternal  salva¬ 
tion.”  (I  think  not.)  Page  136:  “All  gifts,  all 
virtues,  and  all  graces  are  dispensed  by  Mary,  to 
whomsoever,  whensoever,  and  howsoever  she  pleases. 
Page  143  :  “The  way  of  salvation  is  open  to  no  one, 
otherwise  than  through.  Mary.  No  one  is  saved,  ex¬ 
cept  through  thee.”  Page  144:  “Our  salvation  is 
in  the  hands  of  Mary :  .  .  our  salvation  depends 
upon  thee.”  Page  251  :  “Thou  art  omnipotent  to 
save  sinners.”  Page  230:  “Let  us,  therefore,  go 
with  boldness  to  the  Throne  of  grace,  that  we  may 
obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need. 
The  throne  of  grace  is  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary.  If, 
then,  we  wish  for  graces,  let  us  go  the  throne  of 
grace,  which  is  Mary.”  Then,  on  page  479,  the 
following:  “  Jesus  Himself  said  :  ‘Were  it  not  for 
the  prayers  of  my  mother,  there  would  be  no  hope 
of  mercy.’” 

That  is  a  lie  ;  and  so  is  the  whole  of  it.  Now, 
concerning  the  alleged  powers  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
just  a  little  further.  You  read  that  she  is  made  to 


340 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


be  about  all  there  is  in  heaven  for  the  hope  of  sin¬ 
ners.  The  Carmelite  monks  are  her  special  favor¬ 
ites.  Do  you  want  to  know  why?  There  is  a  small 
square  piece  of  cloth  devised  by  the  Carmelite  monks, 
which  is  called  a  scapular.  They  put  one  on  each 
end  of  a  string,  or  ribbon,  and  wear  it  on  their 
shoulders.  That  is  called  the  scapular  of  the  Car¬ 
melites.  Now  the  Virgin  Mary  has  special  favor 
toward  the  Carmelite  monks  ;  and  it  is  said  that  the 
Saturday  after  a  monk  dies,  she  goes  down  into  pur¬ 
gatory  and  takes  him  out.  She  spends  her  Saturday 
afternoons  that  way,  according  to  this  declaration. 
Have  you  seen  these  Carmelites  ?  I  saw  some  Car¬ 
melite  monks  in  Venice  and  Rome.  I  remember 
them  very  well :  the  vision  rises  before  me  now.  I 
think  they  were  among  the  dirtiest  of  all  the  monks 
that  I  ever  saw  ;  and  that  is  saying  much.  I  do  not 
see  why  The  Virgin  Mary  should  go  to  purgatory  for 
them  :  positively,  I  think  that,  in  the  case  of  those 
whom  I  saw,  a  little  purgatory  would  have  done 
them  good  ! 

Now,  to  close,  you  remember  that  I  brought 
before  you,  some  time  since,  the  book  called 
“Judges  of  Faith,”  purchased  in  a  Roman  Catholic 
bookstore,  sanctioned  by  three  hundred  and  eighty, 
or  more,  distinguished  dignitaries  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  ;  in  which  book  we  found  a  large 
share  of  our  information  about  their  intentions  to¬ 
wards  our  public  schools.  On  the  132d  page  of  that 
book  it  is  said,  that  piety  toward  the  Virgin  Mary  is 
one  of  the  things  that  is  to  be  especially  taught  in 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


341 


the  parochial  schools.  If  I  remember  correctly,  that 
quotation  is  from  the  words  of  the  Baltimore  Plenary 
Council.  Piety  to  the  Virgin  Mary  is  especially  to 
be  taught  in  the  parochial  schools  ;  I  suppose,  in  the 
one  just  started  in  Worcester,  and  those  in  Brook- 
iield,  and  in  Waltham,  and  in  Boston.  What  is  piety 
to  the  Virgin  Mary?  We  have  heard  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  answers  to  that  question.  I  suppose  they  may 
take  Liguori’s  “Glories  of  Mary”  as  one  of  their 
reading- books,  possibly  ;  and  may  get  not  only  what 
we  read,  but  a  very  great  deal  more  of  the  same 
tenor.  Is  that  education  ? 

The  Virgin  Mary,  as  you  may  not  know,  has  been 
made  the  patroness  of  America,  as  St.  George  is  of 
England,  St.  Andrew  of  Scotland,  St.  Patrick  of 
Ireland,  St.  Denis  of  France,  and  St.  James  of  Spain. 
The  Virgin  Mary  is  to  be  the  patron  saint  of  Ameri¬ 
cans  ;  and  I  suppose,  therefore,  they  would  teach 
American  youth  more  about  her  than  they  would 
teach  youth  in  any  other  part  of  the  world.  When 
this  teaching  has  been  taught,  what  will  be  the 
condition  of  the  mind  of  those  who  are  so  instructed? 
I  confess,  this  whole  thing  staggers  me,  as  I  come 
to  see  what  Pome  purposes  to  teach. 

Some  years  ago,  I  read  of  a  company  of  people, 
in  New  York,  who  proposed  to  revive  the  old  Greek 
idol-worship.  ■  We  were  told  that  they  had  secured  a 
beautiful  marble  statue  for  a  divinity,  and  a  little 
band  of  them  had  gathered  together  to  worship  the 
statue.  It  was  a  very  strange  story,  and  very 
highly  interesting  to  me  ;  yet  it  caused  a  shudder. 


342 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


as  I  thus  learned  that,  even  at  this  late  a^e  of 
Gospel  civilization,  there  were  yet  people  in  our 
midst  who  had  so  forsaken  truth  and  dishonored  God 
that  they  were  worshipping  idols.  And  yet,  my 
friends,  the  power  that  is  threatening  to  dominate- 
this  country,  is  a  power  which  does  that  very  thing. 

Last  night,  a  friend,  who  is  very  familiar  with 
French  literature,  told  me  that  Victor  Hugo  once 
wrote  a  very  impressive  poem  satirizing  Romish 
idolatry,  developing  the  following  ideas  :  The  poet 
imagines,  in  this  work,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
in  heaven,  finds  that  lie  is  receiving  neither  prayer 
nor  praise.  When  the  Lord  observes  that  neither 
prayer  nor  praise  is  sent  up  to  him,  he  has  a  feeling 
of  loneliness  from  being  neglected,  and  he  says : 
“Why  is  this,  that  I  do  not  hear  from  earth,  either  in 
the  way  of  prayer  or  praise  ?  I  must  inquire  about 
it.  I  have  a  vicegerent  down  there,  whom  I  have 
appointed,  and  to  whom  I  have  given  the  power  of 
the  keys  ;  and  yet  I  get  no  words  or  messages  from 
the  earth.”  And  so  the  Lord  resolved  to  descend 
from  heaven,  and  see  what  was  the  reason  of  this 
neglect;  and  lie  said:  “Because  I  have  been  on 
earth  in  the  form  of  a  peasant,  I  shall  be  best  known 
to  my  church  in  that  form  ;  and  I  will  thus  descend, 
to  see  why  it  is.”  So  he  came  down  from  the 
heavens,  in  form  as  he  was  in  Nazareth  and  Galilee; 
and  he  went  to  the  great  city  where  the  Pope,  his 
vicegerent,  lives  ;  and  beheld  the  splendor  of  the  pre¬ 
lates,  and  the  poverty,  and  vice,  and  superstition  of 
the  people ;  and  when  he  came  to  the  door  of  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


343 


palace  there  were  the  Swiss  soldiers,  in  their  yellow 
and  black  uniforms,  who  denied  him  admittance. 
They  repulsed  him  rudely.  At  length  he,  by  some 
means,  found  his  way  in,  and  finally  obtained  an 
audience  with  the  Pope.  No  sooner  did  this  humble 
peasant  come  into  the  presence  of  the  Pope,  who  was 
seated  on  a  throne  in  all  the  paraphernalia  and  splen¬ 
dor  of  his  exalted  office,  than  He  Avas  frowned  down 
by  His  oavii  vicar,  spoken  to  in  a  contemptuous  and 
bitter  manner,  and  bidden  begone.  Upon  this,  throw¬ 
ing  off  His  disguise,  and  assuming  the  majestic  form 
at  which  all  classes  of  beings  tremble,  the  mighty 
Saviour  began  to  address  deserved  reproof  to  this 
usurper,  who  had  taken  the  place  of  the  true  Bishop 
of  souls.  In  terrific  words  of  truth,  he  told  the 
trembling  sinner  that  he  was  without  the  spirit  of 
the  Master  ;  that  he  was  the  plunderer  and  destroyer 
of  souls  ;  that  he  Avas  extorting  from  men  a  supersti¬ 
tious  and  undeserved  veneration  ;  that  the  prayers 
which  should  ascend  to  God  in  heaven,  were  stopped 
by  saints,  and  images,  and  relics,  and  popes,  and 
bishops,  on  earth  ;  and  that,  instead  of  the  ends  of 
the  great  plan  of  salvation  being  served,  by  leading 
men  to  God,  there  had  been  built  up  a  hierarchy  as 
selfish  as  it  was  hateful,  which  barred  the  Avay  to 
heaven. 

The  poet-satirist  Avas  wholly  right  in  his  dream. 
When  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  hea\7en 
with  flaming  fire,  to  take  vengeance  on  those  who 
'know  not  the  Lord,  and  who  have  abolished  and 
degraded  His  truth,  I  believe  that  His  vengeful 


344  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

lightnings  will  first  strike  that  usurping  power, 
which,  in  the  name  of  the  lowly  Jesus,  has  vaulted 
to  the  very  heights  of  blasphemy,  and  has  sunk  to 
the  very  depths  of  superstition.  And  I  hope  that 
the  American  people  will  see  that  certain  purpose 
of  eternal  justice  soon  enough  to  save  themselves 
from  the  desolation  which  this  curse,  this  pagan 
curse,  has  wrought  in  other  lands. 


Sermon  XI3L 


'SOME  FURTHER  ASPECTS  OF  PAROCHIAL  SCHOOLS. 

If  you  turn  to  the  60th  Psalm,  the  third  and  the 
fourth  verses,  you  will  find  the  following  words  : 
“  Thou  hast  shewed  thy  people  hard  things  ;  thou 
hast  made  us  to  drink  the  wine  of  astonishment. 
Thou  hast  given  a  banner  to  them  that  fear  thee, 
that  it  may  he  displayed  because  of  the  truth.” 

It  must  be  confessed  that  the  stupendous  scheme 
<of  political  tyranny  which  we  have  been  compelled 
to  describe  from  this  pulpit  in  the  last  three  months, 
is  an  astonishing  thins:  for  the  Protestant  Christian  to 
hear,  and  a  hard  thing  for  the  American  people  to 
comprehend.  If  we  may  trust  their  own  statements 
and  rely  on  their  own  utterances,  the  Pope  and  the 
hierarchs  of  the  Roman  Cntholic  Church  not  only 
claim  the  absolute  political  allegiance  of  every  person 
throughout  the  world,  but  they  define  themselves  as 
irreconcilable  enemies  of  all  that  our  fathers  gave 
their  lives  to  purchase,  and  all  that  our  brothers 
died  to  preserve.  No  less  true  is  it  that  against  the 
great  institutions  of  the  country,  through  which  is 
diffused  the  large  intelligence  necessary  for  the  pre¬ 
servation  of  a  republic,  have  they  put  forth  their 


346 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


utmost  strength,  and  have  resolved  that  Romanism, 
not  Americanism,  shall  be  taught  to  little  children  in 
schools.  When  they  have  swept  away  our  public 
system  of  education,  they  are  resolved  to  teach  that 
creed  and  its  practices  which  I  described  to  you  in 
the  last  three  discourses. 

There  were  many,  no  doubt,  who,  listening,  said  : 
44  It  is  a  hard  thing,  and  who  can  believe  that  Roman 
Catholic  doctors  of  theology  sanction  the  grossest 
violations  of  the  moral  law  ;  that  they  teach  the  peo¬ 
ple  absolute  paganism  and  idolatry  ;  that  they  are  at 
least  nineteen  hundred  years  behind  the  spirit  and 
doctrine  of  Protestant  New  England,  in  the  type  of 
religion  which  they  teach?  ”  It  is  a  hard  thing  ;  and 
we  have  44  drunk  the  wine  of  astonishment while 
we  have  considered  these  discourses  which  have 
brought  it  to  our  attention.  But  in  the  face  of  such 
facts,  is  anything  truer  than  the  second  verse  of  this 
text,  that  if  God  has  committed  any  trust  to  intelli¬ 
gent  men,  He  has  intrusted  us  with  a  banner  by 
which  to  represent  His  truth,  an  uplifted  symbol  of 
our  antagonism  to  all  that  enslaves  the  human  mind, 
and  corrupts  the  morals  of  society.  Can  there  be  any 
doubt  as  to  whether  God  has  given  us  a  banner  to 
display  in  the  face  of  such  an  assailant?  Is  it  doubt¬ 
ful  whether  it  is  a  Christian  minister’s  duty,  or  a 
Christian  patriot’s  obligation,  to  confront  this  organ¬ 
ized  tyranny  which  is  threatening  to  subvert  our 
liberties  and  our  laws?  I  think  there  can  be  no 
doubt. 

What,  then,  is  the  banner  that  we  have  been 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


347 


entrusted  to  hold  up?  what  is  the  symbol  that 
we  display  in  the  face  of  a  foe  who  always  displays 
the  black  flag  of  intolerance  ?  what  banner  do  we 
advance  in  the  face  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as 
it  marches  from  out  the  centuries  where  it  has  trod¬ 
den  down  the  nations  in  blood,  to  add  another  to  its 
list  of  prostrate  peoples?  I  answer,  that  we  elevate  a 
double  symbol  :  the  banner  that  we  rear  in  the  name 
of  patriotism,  is  the  flag  of  a  free  Republic  ;  the  stand¬ 
ard  which  we  present  to  them  in  the  name  of  truth 
and  religion,  is  the  open  Word  of  God.  No  hatred 
soils  that  flag  ;  no  malignity  disfigures  that  page. 
And  while  they  blaze  with  excommunications  and 
avowed  hate  ;  while  their  instruments  of  torture  are 
red  with  the  best  blood  of  all  nations  ;  we  challenge 
them  with  a  flag  which  forbids  slavery,  and  a  book 
that  has  never  sanctioned  superstition  ! 

It  seems  a  necessity  at  this  time,  as  we  move  for¬ 
ward  in  the  line  of  argumentative  conflict  under  such 
standards,  that  we  should  gather  up  some  of  those 
truths  which  are  likely  to  have  been  dropped  out  and 
forgotten  in  a  discussion  so  protracted  and  one 
involving  so  many  particulars  ;  and  because  I  do  not 
wish  to  leave  the  subject  of  parochial  schools  without 
saying  some  things  that  I  have  not  yet  said,  I  propose 
to-night  to  recur  to  that,  a  little  out  of  the  general 
progress  of  the  discourses,  rather  than  to  neglect 
some  really  important  phases  of  the  subject.  While 
it  is  true  that  everything  that  I  have  said  in  the  last 
three  months  bears  directly  upon  their  effort  to  sub¬ 
vert  public  education,  what  I  shall  say  to-night  is 
specially  upon  that  design. 


348 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


In  a  connection  that  will,  I  hope,  make  these 
practical  suggestions  of  value,  I  beg  you  to  attend 
first  to  the  fact,  that  the  agitation  against  American 
schools,  which  we  are  now  forced  to  consider,  is 
solely  the  work  of  the  priests,  and  not  of  the  laity  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  I.  From  first  to  last 
it  is  the  attack  of  ecclesiastics  and  not  of  laymen. 
The  authorities  which  I  have  cited  to  you,  so  adverse 
to  our  public  schools,  are  popes,  cardinals,  bishops 
and  priests  ;  but  I  have  not  cited  to  you  from  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  one  lawyer,  one  physician, 
one  man  of  business,  one  merchant,  one  teacher.  It 
is  therefore  obvious  to  you,  that  the  authorities,  at 
least  those  we  have  presented  for  the  assault  on  pub¬ 
lic  education  in  the  form  that  we  have  it,  are  priestly 
authorities,  not  lay  authorities.  Indeed,  it  is  evident 
that  the  laity  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  have  not 
been  consulted  about  this  matter.  When  were  they 
ever  consulted  about  anv  matter  that  had  been 
resolved  upon  by  priestly  power? 

The  Roman  Catholic  people,  many  of  them,  object 
to  being  dragged  into  a  position  of  hostility  to  our 
schools  ;  they  insist  on  keeping  their  children  in  the 
common  sohools,  for  a  time  at  least ;  occasionally 
also,  there  is  even  a  priest  who  favors  public  schools. 
But  whether  or  not  they  insist  on  keeping  their 
children  in  our  schools,  they  are  being  driven,  under 
the  lash  of  priestly  despotism,  to  take  them  out 
of  those  schools.  I  regard  this  as  a  very  significant 
impression  to  be  left  on  the  mind  of  every  intelligent 
American  hearer,  that  this  is  not  an  attack  of  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


349 


people,  who  are  deriving  benefits  from  our  public 
schools,  upon  them  ;  it  is  not  a  revolt  against  our  sys¬ 
tem  of  public  education  by  those  who  have  enjoyed 
the  benefits  of  that  system  ;  but  it  is  an  onslaught  of 
solely  clerical  tyrants  upon  the  freedom  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  and  upon  the  freedom  of  America ;  and  those 
tyrants  wear  the  priestly  gown,  the  bishop’s  mitre, 
and  the  papal  tiara. 

There  have  recently  appeared  in  the  New  York 
Independent  a  series  of  very  remarkable  articles, 
written  by  a  Roman  Catholic  layman.  The  editors 
of  the  New  York  Independent  are  known  to  me,  as  no 
doubt  they  are  to  many  of  you  ;  and  while  the  paper 
has  a  very  high  character,  the  editors  have  an  even 
higher  character,  if  that  were  possible.  These 
gentlemen  have  vouched  for  the  fact  that  this  writer 
is  a  layman  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  and  he,  in, 
speaking  of  the  relation  of  the  laity  to  the  Church, 
uses,  in  the  issue  of  October  11 ,  the  following  words  : 
“  One  cause,  and  I  believe  the  principal  cause,  of  the 
failure  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  maintain  a 
continued  hold  of  the  love  and  devotion  of  the  people 
of  any  country,  has  been  the  complete  isolation  of  the 
interests  of  the  laity.  The  Roman  Catholic  papers 
are  full  of  complaints  of  the  indifference  of  the  laity 
to  Roman  Catholic  interests.  If  these  papers  are 
to  be  taken  as  true  witnesses  in  their  own  case,  this 
indifference  exists  to  an  extraordinary  extent  even  in 
this  country,  and  it  is  not  a  4  note’  of  ecclesiastical 
advancement.  Now,  there  must  be  a  cause  for  this 
indifference,  and  we  have  some  personal  knowledge 


350 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


of  this  cause.”  lie  goes  on  and  discusses  at  length 
the  reason  why  the  laity  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  are  in  a  condition  of  bewilderment  and  indiffer¬ 
ence,  scarcely  knowing  what  to  do,  and  in  course  of 
that  discussion  uses  the  following  language  :  “  Now 
what  is  true  of  the  general  public  and  the  influence 
of  the  Pope  on  national  politics,  is  true  of  the  power 
and  influence  of  every  bishop  and  priest  in  local  poli¬ 
tics.  As  members  of  an  infallible  body,  they  are 
practically  infallible  ;  as  members  of  the  most  power¬ 
ful  combination  on  earth,  their  power  to  control  the 
Catholic  laity  is  unlimited.  If  the  commands  of  the 
Pope  must  be  obeyed  by  all  nations  and  rulers  at  the 
risk  of  eternal  loss,  the  commands  of  the  priests  are 
practically,  if  not  equally,  binding;  or  to  all  pur¬ 
poses  quite  as  effectually  binding.  Hence  if  the  Pope 
can  change  the  policy  of  a  king  or  emperor,  the 
bishop  can  change  the  policies  and  purposes  of  the 
mayor  or  aldermen.”  And  then  he  adds  :  “The  Roman 
Catholic  laity  have  come  to  know  this  very  well  ; 
hence  their  marked  unwillingness  to  interfere  in  any 


affair  whatever  which  is  in  any  way  under  ecclesias¬ 
tical  control ;  and  what  is  there  that  is  not  so  con¬ 
trolled?  Nor  are  they  willing  to  place  themselves 
in  any  position  where  they  may  be  made  to  feel  t lie 
weight  of  the  ecclesiastical  arm.  A  priest,  consciously 
or  unconsciously,  uses  his  spiritual  powers  to  attain 
his  temporal  ends  ;  if  he  did  not,  he  would  be  more 
than  human.” 

He  then  proceeds  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  the 
Polish  Roman  Catholics  in  the  city  of  Chicago  have 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


351 


Tevolted  against  their  priests  because  of  the  priests’ 
attempted  dominance  over  them  in  all  minute  affairs. 
This  is  what  they  say  in  their  declaration  addressed 
to  the  Pope  :  “  The  priests  want  to  control  the  pri¬ 
vate,  as  well  as  the  religious,  affairs  of  their  parish¬ 
ioners,  and  render  them  virtually  slaves  to  do  their 
bidding,  and  failing  in  this,  the  priests  have  maligned 
members  of  the  Alliance,  and  sought  to  create  preju¬ 
dice  against  them.  The  petitioners  represent  that 
they  are  true  Catholics ;  do  not  belong  to  any 
socialistic,  nihilistic  or  anarchistic  organization ; 
and  in  everything  have  deported  themselves  as  true 
sons  of  the  Church.”  The  spirit  of  Sobieski,  who 
helped  to  achieve  American  independence,  has  not 
wholly  died  oat  of  Polish  Roman  Catholics;  and  it 
seems  that  they,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  have  lifted 
up  their  voices  in  protest  against  having  the  priest¬ 
hood  push  them  on  to  a  position  which  they  deprecate, 
denounce  and  reject.  Furthermore,  we  have  here  a 
statement  from  a  Roman  Catholic  layman  in  the 
South,  as  follows  :  “  A  Southern  gentleman,  whose 

opinion  would  command  extraordinary  respect  if  I 
could  give  his  name,  said,  not  long  since  :  “  We  (the 
laity)  have  given  up  all  interest  in  church  affairs. 
We  do  whatever  we  believe  to  be  necessary 
to  save  our  souls,  and  we  attend  to  our  own 
business.  Several  times  when  we  have  tried  to 
interest  the  Bishop  in  plans  which  we  believed  would 
greatly  benefit  the  Church  and  advance  the  interests 
of  religion,  we  found  our  suggestions  were  not  taken 

O  7  Co 

in  good  part,  and  were,  in  fact,  considered  as  impel- 


352 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


tineut  intrusion  :  and  we  heard  so  much  of  humility 
and  obedience  that  we  determined  for  the  future  to 
withdraw  altogether  from  Church  affairs.  The 
Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  South,”  continues  this 
representative  Roman  Catholic,  “  is  dying  of  dry 
rot :  we  have  indifferent  bishops,  who  are  scarcely 
ever  seen  by  their  people,  and  who  do  not  care  in  the 
least  to  consider  any  plan  which  they  have  not  sug¬ 
gested  themselves  ;  and  who  only  express  an  interest 
in  the  laity  when  they  want  to  get  money.”  If  this 
is  a  representative  utterance  of  the  intelligent  hiity 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  (and  it  comes  cer¬ 
tainly  from  that  source),  then  we  have  additional 
proof  that  the  laity,  the  main  body  of  the  Church,  are 
not  interested  in  the  overthrow  of  our  system  of  pub¬ 
lic  education. 

It  simplifies  matters  somewhat,  if  we  find  that  we 
are  only  fighting  gowned  priests  in  this  matter.  If  the 
Roman  Catholic  people  are  being  bullied  and  driven  in¬ 
to  a  position  of  hostility  that  they  do  not  desire  to  take, 
then,  O  my  brothers,  let  us  try  with  all  our  might,  to 
give  them  that  moral  sympathy,  that  enlightenment 
and  that  help,  which  will  make  a  clear  division 
between  them  and  their  oppressors,  and  will  save  to 
America  and  to  patriotism  the  warm-hearted  Irish¬ 
men  and  Frenchmen  who  are  now  being  forced,  by 
priestly  and  foreign  power,  into  antagonism  to  their 
own  best  interests  and  the  nation’s  welfare. 

2.  How,  although  the  laity  are  not  consulted,  the 
vast  cost  of  those  schools  is  to  be  borne  by  the  laity, 
not  by  the  priesthood.  The  founding  of  parochial 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


353 


schools  involves  a  very  large  expense  :  that  expense 
is  to  be  met  by  the  people,  not  by  the  priests.  The 
priests  have  no  interests  particularly  in  popular 
education.  I  mean  they  have  no  families  ;  they  have 
no  recognized  children  that  are  to  attend  these 
schools.  Many  of  them  live  in  luxury,  and  have 
few  cares,  except  their  churcldy  cares.  You  very 
rarely  hear  of  their  giving  large  subscriptions  for  the 
promotion  of  parochial  education.  AYhile  I  was 
visiting  a  little  town  in  Connecticut,  a  man  told  me 
that,  on  a  recent  occasion,  there  came  ten  priests  to  a 
funeral,  (I  suppose  of  a  priest)  ;  and  he  said,  after  the 
funeral  the  ten  priests  went  to  a  hotel  and  had  a 
dinner  ;  that  the  proprietor  of  the  hotel  said  he  never 
had  a  company  in  his  house  who  made  such  epicurean 
demands  as  these.  They  called  for  all  the  best  liquors 
in  his  cellar ;  they  drank  most  freely  ;  and  they  were 
exceedingly  hilarious.  They  sang  indecent  songs 
and  told  immodest  stories,  until  he  was  glad  to  have 
them  leave  his  house  ;  but  they  made  a  very  large 
bill,  which  the}r  paid;  and  I  suppose  the  publican 
who  would  sell  rum,  would  not  much  object  to  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  sale  was  effected. 

The  priests  are  not  all  used  to  luxury.  Many  of 
them  are  noble,  self-denying  men  ;  but  the  priests 
who  control  the  great  parishes  of  cities  where  the 
parochial  schools  are  being  founded,  are  not  denying 
themselves  for  the  sake  of  getting  adequate  funds  to 
build  up  these  schools.  The  people  have  to  furuish 
the  money. 

We  have  pictures  of  extortion  by  priests  drawn  by 


354 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


their  own  laymen.  I  have  been  told  in  this  very 
city,  by  a  man  who  knew  the  facts,  in  whose  word  I 
can  have  only  confidence,  and  a  Roman  Catholic,  of 
the  priest’s  habit  of  going  up  and  down  the  aisle  him¬ 
self  and  taking  the  collection  ;  not  because  there  was 
no  one  else  able  to  take  it,  but  because,  in  the  arro¬ 
gance  of  his  priestly  power,  he  compelled  men  to  give 
who  otherwise  would  have  refused.  We  have  a  case 
not  Ions:  a^o,  in  a  Massachusetts’  town,  where,  when 
a  man  declined  to  give  as  the  priest  presented  the 
box,  the  priest  took  off  his  priestly  robe,  and  pro¬ 
posed  to  throw  the  man  out  of  doors,  and  actually 
forced  him  out  of  the  church,  because  he  declined  to 
contribute. 

This  is  the  position  of  the  priests  ;  but  what  is  the 
condition  of  the  people?  We  have  the  same  author¬ 
ity  in  the  New  York  Independent  of  Sept.  27,  giv¬ 
ing  us  an  idea  of  what  is  being  done  to  oppress  the 
people  in  the  matter  of  acquiring  funds.  It  is  an 
article  entitled:  “Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
Advancing?”  He  says:  “Its  numerical  strength  is 
the  great  point  made  by  Catholics,  when  they  wish 
to  impress  on  their  own  minds,  or  on  the  minds  of 
others,  the  great  power  of  the  Church  in  this  coun¬ 
try.  And  so  far,  the  numerical  strength  of  the 
Roman  Catholics  in  America  has  told,  beyond  all 
doubt,  in  politics.  But  what  is  the  real,  rather  we 
should  say,  what  is  the  spiritual  value  of  this  prepon¬ 
derating  influence ?  Is  it  to  lessen  crime?  Is  it  to 
lessen  suffering?  Has  it  elevated  the  moral  or  intel¬ 
lectual  condition  of  the  masses  in  New  York?  He 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


355 


would  bo  a  bold  man  who  dared  to  say,  in  the  face 
of  facts,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  been 
a  powerful  influence  for  good  in  that  city.” 

If  I  should  talk  so  about  Congregationalism  in  this 

O  o 

city,  and  if  I  had  justifiable  occasion  so  to  talk,  you 
would  think  that  there  was  certainly  need  of  a  great 
reform  in  that  body.  Thank  God  !  it  can  never  be 
said  of  any  Protestant  denomination  of  which  I  know, 
that  its  presence  is  a  moral  curse.  “  But  what  solid 
foundation  lies  underneath?”  he  asks.  “The 
Churches  are  magnificent,  and  costly,  and  heavily 
burdened  with  debt ;  but  few  are  consecrated,  though 
they  are  built  for  many  years.  Is  this  creditable  to 
ecclesiastical  management,  or  to  religion?  The  poor 
are  heavily,  I  might  almost  say  cruelly  taxed  to  pay 
these  debts,  or  rather  to  pay  the  heavy  mortgages  on 
these  churches,  and  with  little  hope  of  reprieve.” 
And  then  he  goes  on  to  state,  that  Father  Colton,  the 
successor  of  Dr.  McGlynn,  at  the  Church  of  St. 
Stephen,  where  there  is  now  a  debt  of  $140,000, 
proposes  to  add  $60,000  to  the  debt,  in  order  that  he 
may  erect  a  parochial  school,  and  adds,  that  Father 
Colton  is  being  very  much  praised  for  so  doing; 
while  he  continues:  “As  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
McGlynn’s  successor,  each  new  priest  must  do  some 
new  work  to  get  credit  for  his  zeal.  But  all  this  is 
done  at  the  expense  of  the  poor  of  his  parish.  The; 
priest  gets  all  the  honor  and  the  poor  get  all  the  bur¬ 
den.”  He  then  quotes  the  Freeman's  Journal  as 
declaring  “  that  Father  Colton  is  quite  cheerful  about 
it,  and  he  well  may  be,  considering  that  not  one 


356 


Romanism  and  the  Republic, 


penny  of  the  expense  will  come  out  of  his  pocket, 
and  that  he  will  get  all  sorts  of  ecclesiastical  and 
episcopal  honor  and  glory  for  using  other  people’s 
monev.” 

There  is  another  little  fragment  here  that  he  intro- 
duces  from  the  Freeman's  Journal ,  a  bit  of  supersti¬ 
tious  fraud,  which  is  so  good  a  morsel  you  must  have 
the  benefit  of  it.  The  statement  of  the  editor  of  the 
Freeman s  Journal  is  amusing  in  more  ways  than 
one,  and  we  give  it  here.  He  says  :  “  St.  Joseph  is 
a  rich  and  powerful  friend  ”  (that  is,  the  husband  of 
The  Virgin  Mary),  “  who  has  often  proved  himself  a 
benefactor  to  others,  even  in  darker  hours  than  now, 
frequently  causing  magnificent  churches,  convents, 
and  other  institutions  to  rise  seemingly  out  of  noth¬ 
ing,  as  in  the  case  of  the  splendid  building  erected 
by  the  late  Rev.  Father  Dromgoole,  in  this  city 
(known  as  the  Mission  of  the  Immaculate  Virgin, 
but  erected  by  the  St.  Joseph’s  Union  through  the 
medium  of  twenty-five-cent  subscriptions) ,  at  a  cost 
of  over  $300,000,  not  including  the  property  on 
Staten  Island  ;  which,  with  other  expenditures,  would 
bring  the  total  cost  up  to  about  half  a  million  of 
dollars.  Would  it  not  be  well  to  try  some  special 
devotion  to  St.  Joseph  with  the  above  intention  ; 
such,  for  instance,  as  keeping  a  light  burning  con¬ 
stantly  before  his  statue  until  the  debt  is  paid  F 
And  the  Roman  Catholic  layman  comments  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  “  Well,  if  burning  candles  to  St.  Joseph  will 
pay  the  debt,  by  all  means  let  them  be  burned.  But 
we  fear  the  poor  Irish  servant  girls  of  the  parish  will 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


357 


have  a  good  deal  more  to  do  with  the  payment  than 
St.  Joseph,  and  that  it  will  remain  for  another  pastor 
to  increase.” 

This,  from  an  inside  standpoint,  shows  us  where 
the  money  is  coming  from  that  is  demanded  in  such 
vast  sums  for  the  purpose  of  creating  parochial 
schools.  The  people  have  to  find  that.  There  are  many 
in  this  congregation  who  have  had  their  servant  saris 
come  home  and  say  they  must  have  another  fifty  cents 
or  another  dollar  a  week.  Now  you  are  not  unwilling 
that  wages  should  be  raised  in  proportion  to  service 
rendered,  but  if  you  happen  to  overhear  the  arrange¬ 
ment  being  made  between  the  Sister  of  Charity  soli¬ 
citing,  and  the  servant  girl,  by  which  the  additional 
wages  are  to  go  into  the  treasury  of  the  Church,  you 
may  naturally  object ;  not  but  what  you  want  your 
servant  to  have  adequate  wages,  but  you  do  not  par¬ 
ticularly  feel  under  obligations  to  build  the  palaces 
of  bishops  and  parochial  schools. 

This  question  of  the  wages  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
is  an  interesting  question.  You  might  raise  the 
wages  of  the  Roman  Catholic  people  as  high  as  it 
were  possible,  and  they  would  be  just  as  poor  as 
they  are  now.  Why?  Because  their  surplus  is 
grasped  by  the  rapacity  of  priests,  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  erecting  splendid  churches  and  parochial 
schools,  and  for  increasing  the  luxury  of  the  priests. 
Sometimes  our  Protestant  Christian  people  say  :  “  Oh, 
how  Romanists  raise  money.  I  wish  that  we  could 
raise  money  as  they  do.”  God  forbid  !  God  forbid  ! 
If  we  raised  money  as  they  do,  we  would  be  no  more 


358 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


a  Christian  Church.  They  raise  money  by  all  sorts 
of  oppression  and  threats.  Aye,  some  of  them  frighten 
even  you,  when  they  threaten.  There  came  into 
the  store  of  a  friend  of  mine  the  other  dav  solicitors  for 
a  Roman  Catholic  fair.  They  insisted  that  he  should 
give  something.  lie  said:  “  Gentlemen,  I  have  noth¬ 
ing  to  give  for  that  purpose  whereupon  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  Papacy  said  :  “  Well,  if  you  do  not 
give,  we  will  boycott  your  store;”  and  he  said,  in 
effect:  “Go  and  do  it;  go  now!”  He  emphasized 
the  now ,  and  they  went.  There  is  a  merchant  in 
this  city  who,  under  similar  circumstances,  being 
asked  to  give  to  a  Roman  Catholic  fair,  was  told  if 
he  did  not  give  to  their  Church  they  would  not  trade 
with  him.  He  said:  “I  do  not  do  business  in  that 
way  :  I  shall  give  nothing !  ”  I  am  thankful  to  say 
that  this  store-keeper  is  prosperous  yet.  Within 
the  last  week  I  have  been  told  that  if  I  were 
a  merchant  I  should  not  dare  to  say  what 
I  am  saying,  because  the  Romanists  would  boy- 
cott  me.  Thank  Heaven  !  I  am  not  in  any  position  to 
fear  the  threats  of  Rome.  My  support  depends  on 
Christians  and  freemen ;  not  on  slaves,  or  creatures 
of  Romish  priests. 

There  is  a  great  amount  of  Protestant  money  put 
into  these  schools  and  into  these  churches  that  ought 
not  to  £0  there.  Father  O’Connor  said  to  me,  in 
New  York,  the  other  day  :  “  You  are  reaping  in  New 
England  what  you  have  sown.  You  have  made  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  what  it  is.  You  have  given 
the  money  to  build  their  churches ;  you  have  given 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


359 


the  money  to  build  their  schools  ;  and  now  they  turn 
and  try  to  destroy  you.  You  have  warmed  the 
viper  in  your  bosom,”  said  he,  “that  now  is  trying 
to  sting  you  to  death.”  He  spoke  the  truth.  We 
know  that  he  spoke  the  truth.  Business  men  have 
stopped  me  on  the  street  in  this  city,  and  said  : 
“What  is  our  duty  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  giving 
money  so  that  it  goes  into  the  treasury  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  ?”  I  say  :  “  It  isyour  duty  not  to  give 
a  dollar ;  any  more  than  you  would  have  bought  the 
bonds  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  when  Jefferson 
Davis,  at  its  head,  was  trying  to  ruin  the  country. 
Not  a  dollar,  not  a  penny,  for  Romanism  in  America, 
from  Protestant  hands  and  pockets  !  If  that  policy 
were  adopted,  it  would  make  a  vast  difference  to  the 
strength  of  this  enemy  of  freedom.  Thus  the  people 
have  to  furnish  the  money,  and  I  have  already  inti¬ 
mated  that  the  Protestant  people  are  furnishing  too 
large  a  part  of  it.  This  brings  me  to  another  very 
interesting  aspect  of  this  matter  of  parochial  schools. 

3.  There  is  a  very  larsre  amount  of  Protestant 
money  invested  in  Roman  Catholic  Churches  and  in 
Roman  Catholic  schools.  You  know  that  they  have 
erected  magnificent  churches  in  almost  every  city. 
These  churches  cannot  be  consecrated  until  they  are 
free  from  debt.  The  Roman  Catholic  layman  from 
whom  I  have  just  read,  says,  that  there  are  almost 
no  Roman  Catholic  churches  in  New  York  that  are 
consecrated.  I  was  told  by  a  Roman  Catholic  gentle¬ 
man  in  this  city,  that  probably  not  one  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  churches  in  this  city  had  been  consecrated. 


360 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


That  is,  because  there  are  heavy  mortgages  on  this 
property.  But  who  has  mortgaged  this  property? 
who  holds  it,  and  owns  it?  Here  is  an  interesting 
question.  If  any  Protestant  church  desires  to  secure 
money  on  mortgage,  it  has  a  perfectly  legal  way  of 
proceeding,  by  which  the  corporate  body,  that 
is  the  entire  society,  or  its  representative  legal  cor¬ 
poration,  incurs  and  becomes  responsible  for  the 
debt.  Sometimes  money  is  obtained  for  a  Protes¬ 
tant  church  by  means  of  an  individual  becoming 
responsible  ;  and  it  is  the  law  in  some  States,  that 
trustees  who  are  on  the  paper  of  a  church  wdien 
the  debt  is  incurred,  cannot  take  their  names  off  that 
paper  so  long  as  the  debt  stands,  because  they  are 
held  personally  responsible.  Now  who  holds  the 
property  of  Roman  Catholic  churches  ?  and  who 
mortgages  that  property  ? 

Not  Roman  Catholic  laymen,  whose  labor  and 

money  must  pay  the  mortgage.  All  the  property  of 

the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  a  diocese  is  held  by 

the  bishop,  and  in  the  bishop’s  name.  I  think  that 

is  so  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts.  I  was  looking 

© 

up  the  law  ;  and,  as  nearly  as  I  can  see,  that  is  the 
universal  law  of  Roman  Catholics,  and  the  law  in 
this  State.  Very  good.  Who  is  the  person  that 
owns  the  Roman  Catholic  churches  of  Worcester? 
The  men  who  built  them?  the  men  who  worship  in 
them?  the  men  whose  wages  and  whose  money  have 
gone  into  them  ?  No;  but  a  stranger,  whom  they 
call  “My  Lord,”  and  who  lives  somewhere  else. 

Is  he  responsible,  financially,  to  such  an  extent 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


361 


that  it  is  wise  for  banks  to  loan  vast  sums  of  money 
on  Roman  Catholic  property?  Whose  money  is  this 
which  is  loaned?  Suppose  the  bishop  should  say,  as 
he  might  say  ;  “We  default  on  these  mortgages,” and 
the  property  were  thrown  on  the  market,  who  would 
buy  it?  Those  whose  money  was  there,  would  lose 
almost  every  dollar  of  it.  And  suppose  that  the 
bishop  was  an  honest  man,  but  that  the  Pope  should 
send  out  word  to  America,  where  these  mortgages 
are  so  plentiful,  “I  protest  against  your  paying  the 
heretics  their  money  ;  ”  every  bishop  would  obey  his 
command,  on  penalty  of  perdition.  We  may  be 
exceedingly  capable  in  the  management  of  our  busi¬ 
ness,  and  our  banks  may  be  shrewd  and  wise  ;  but 
when  I  mark  the  conspiracy  of  Romanism  against 
property,  and  against  nationality,  and  against  intelli¬ 
gence,  and  against  everything  non-Romanist,  then,  I 
say,  Gentlemen,  in  managing  your  business,  it  seems 
to  me  it  would  be  well  to  understand  who  is  going 
to  pay  the  mortgages  that  arc  on  these  vast  prop¬ 
erties,  and  by  which  parochial  schools  are  being 
created.  Do  you  say,  The  Roman  Catholic  people  are 
going  to  pay  them?  If  I  were  in  their  place,,  I 
would  not  pay  a  dollar;  and  I  shall  do  all  I  can  to 
create  a  revolt  among  them  against  this  lavish  and 
wicked  expense,  which  they  did  not  create  nor  con¬ 
sent  to,  and  which  they  ought  not  to  pay.  But  you 
say  :  The  bishops  are  honest,  and  they  will  pay.  Well, 
their  moral  theologians,  St.  Liguori,  Peter  Dens, 
J.  P.  Gury  and  others,  concerning  whom  and  from 
whose  works  I  have  read  to  you  here,  are  the 


362 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


teachers  of  bishops;  and  if  the  bishops  choose  to 
follow  their  moral  standards,  they  can  repudiate 
every  dollar,  and  not  feel  one  qualm  of  conscience. 
Suppose  they  should  follow  their  moral  theologians, 
and  do  it.  I  do  not  say  that  they  will  ;  but  I  say, 
that  if  I  had  money  to  lend  I  would  not  lend  it  to 
them,  with  the  risks  that  are  involved,  and  the  moral 
principles  that  they  teach. 

4.  Now,  while  thus  impoverishing  the  people, 
they  do  not  take  care  of  those  whom  they  rob ;  that 
is  certain.  I  find  here  a  statement,  in  this  same 
article,  by  the  Roman  Catholic  layman,  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  Irish  in  this  country  embrace  “a 
few  millionaires,  a  host  of  politicians,  and  a  vast 
population  of  thriftless,  shiftless,  ill-cared-for  people. 
Better,  a  thousand  times  better,  that  these  people 
should  be  back  in  the  bogs  of  Connemara,  with  their 
pure,  fresh  air,  and  their  pure,  fresh  life,  than  in  the 
crime-haunted  liquor  saloons  of  New  York  and  Bos- 
ton.  Millions  of  Irish  Catholics  have  fled  to  America  ; 
and  when  one  thinks  of  their  miserable  state  in  this 
country,  it  is  hard  to  feel  that  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
whom  they  support  so  loyally,  has  not  one  word  to 
say  to  stop  this  bleeding  of  the  nation — this  destroy¬ 
ing  of  a  people,  who  have  loved  him,  one  might  dare 
to  say,  ‘not  wisely,  but  too  well.’” 

While  they  furnish  hosts  of  pauperized  people,, 
and  apply  the  moneys  that  they  extort  to  building 
up  their  ecclesiastical  institutions,  they  do  not  take 
care  of  the  poor  whom  they  make. 

Go  to  the  Roman  Catholics  countries  of  tl;e  worlds 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


363 


and  you  are  beset  by  myriads  of  beggars.  Of  those 
who  live  at  the  public  expense  in  this  country,  we 
know  that  a  very  considerable  proportion  are  Roman 
Catholics.  Why  do  they  not  take  care  of  the  poor 
whom  they  make  poor  ?  I  will  tell  you  why.  Because 
they  expect  you  to  do  it ;  and  you  do  it.  No  mat¬ 
ter  how  much  they  may  plunder  them,  you  support 
the  plundered  masses  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
Did  you  ever  have  a  beggar  come  to  your  door,  who 
impressed  you  as  being  altogether  worthy  of  help, 
and  whom  you  found  to  be  a  Roman  Catholic?  Did 
you  ever  say  to  such,  “  Go  to  your  priest  !  Why  do 
you  come  to  me,  a  Protestant  minister?  Go  ask 
your  priest  for  help  !  ”  I  have  done  so  ;  and  did  they 
ever  go  to  their  priest?  Never.  Why  not?  Be¬ 
cause  they  knew  they  would  not  get  anything  from 
him,  if  they  did  go.  I  do  not  say  that  some  of  the 
priests  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  not  gene¬ 
rous,  self-denying  men.  I  believe  they  are.  I  speak 
now  of  the  generality — of  the  class — and  I  say,  that 
I  have  never  been  able,  in  dealing  with  the  poor  of 
great  cities, — I  have  never  been  able,  when  I  visited 
them  in  their  garrets  and  cellars,  to  aet  them  to  2*0 
and  apply  for  charity  to  their  own  priests.  Why 
not?  The  priests  are  spending  their  money  in  build¬ 
ing  up  the  hierarchy,  and  we  are  caring  for  their 
poor.  Notwithstanding  all  this — and  all  this  is  true 
and  well  known  — the  plundered  people  still  give  to 
these  schools,  and  yield  to  priests  their  money  to  put 
into  them. 

You  say,  Why  do  they  not  revolt?'  Why  do 


5. 


364 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


they  not  come  out  and  deny  the  right  of  the  priests 
to  rob  them?  We  cannot  hope  that  they  will  do  that 
at  present.  I  do  not  see  any  signs  of  general  revolt. 
There  is  great  unrest ;  and  Father  O’Connor  said  to 
me,  he  knew  a  thousand  priests  that  would  gladly 
break  away  from  Koine  to-day.  They  are  full  of 
unrest ;  but  the  likelihood  of  a  present  revolt  from 
the  demands  of  Rome  is  not  great.  And  why  do  I 
so  conclude?  It  is  because,  although  they  resist  and 
curse,  they  yield?  Did  not  a  gentleman  say  to  me, 
in  this  city,  that  his  servant  girl  came  home,  swear¬ 
ing  and  cursing?  (Of  course,  that  is  according  to 
the  practice  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  :  the 
Popes  are  distinguished  for  cursing.)  And  the  lady 
of  the  house  said,  “What  is  the  matter?”  And  the 
girl,  swearing  at  the  priest,  calling  him  bad  names, 
said  he  had  demanded  of  her  so  much  a  week,  and 
she  swore  she  would  not  pay  it.  A  month  from  that 
time  she  was  still  swearing ;  but  she  had  paid  it. 
That  is  the  way  they  do. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  they 
yield  to  the  Papal  power,  ultimately, — yield  under¬ 
pressure — yield  by  force  of  education  and  training — 
we  have  a  most  graphic  illustration  in  the  present 
paralysis  of  Irishmen  concerning  Home  Rule  in  Ire¬ 
land.  We  cannot  recall  that  too  often.  A  little 
while  ago,  this  city  was  full  of  agitation  concerning 
Ireland  :  the  air  was  full  of  it ;  the  papers  were  full 
of  it.  Home  Rule  was  the  great  cry  :  it  was  almost 
as  prominent  as  the  Tariff  is  now.  Then  came  the 
rescript  from  the  Pope,  who  has  been  the  enemy  of 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


365 


Ireland  from  the  first.  I  have  in  my  possession  a 
book,  given  me  by  an  ex-priest,  written  by  a  man 
trained  a  Roman  Catholic,  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  California.  He  sets  forth  the  fact,  from 
Romish  sources,  that  since  the  day  when  the  Pope  of 
Rome  gave  up  Ireland  to  be  ruled  and  plundered  by 
the  King  of  England, — from  that  day  to  this,  at 
least  five  or  six  times,  the  Pope  has  interfered  when 
Ireland  was  on  the  verge  of  gaining  liberty,  taking 
sides  with  her  tyrants  ;  and  prevented  her  progress 
into  a  better  national  life.  Irishmen  ought  to  know 
that,  and  some  of  them  do  know  it. 

Full  of  burning  enthusiasm  and  energy,  the  Irish¬ 
men  were  talking  and  giving,  when,  all  of  a  sudden, 
the  man  whom  they  call  the  “vicar  of  Christ,”  in 
Rome,  spoke.  Their  hands  dropped  powerless  and 
paralyzed.  My  friends,  if  my  heart  is  not  touched, 
and  I  cannot  say  that  it  is,  there  is  a  little  corner  of 
my  mind  which  is  partly  filled  with  anxiety  to  know 
what  will  happen  to  those  agile  American  politicians 
who,  a  little  while  ago,  so  carried  Ireland  on  their 
hearts,  that  in  their  agonized  interests  over  “  Home 
Rule,”  you  would  have  supposed,  from  great  senators 
down  to  ward  politicians,  that  the  dearest  interest 
of  their  lives  was  the  state  of  Ireland.  Since  the 
Pope  has  spoken,  they,  with  their  dupes,  have  been 
in  the  condition  that  the  farmer’s  boys  put  the 
young  turkeys  in  at  Thanksgiving  time  ;  when  they 
seize  them  by  the  neck,  and  hold  them  so  tight  that, 
though  their  mouths  are  open,  they  can  make  no 
sound.  So  the  Pope  has  seized  our  politicians, 
senators  and  all,  by  the  neck.  I  listen  to  hear  that 


366 


Romanism  and  the  liejmblic. 


cry  of  “Home  Rule  for  Ireland.”  I  listen  to  hear 
a  peep,  if  I  cannot  hear  a  cry  ;  but  silence  reigns 
around.  I  should  think  they  would  burst  in  their 
agony,  because  they  cannot  speak.  No  ;  all  are  silent. 
The  Roman  Catholic  editors  are  silent.  The  Roman 
Catholic  priests  are  silent.  Even  the  Roman  Catholic 
bummers  are  silent.  And  down  under  them,  in  a 
lower  grade,  the  American  politician  is  silent.  So 
when  you  ask  me  why  it  is  that  the  Romanists  do 
not  break  away  from  the  power  of  Rome,  when  they 
know  that  they  are  being  plundered  for  measures 
they  have  not  sanctioned,  I  ask  you,  why  New 
England  men  here  in  Worcester  have  been  muzzled 
by  the  Pope,  and  speak  or  keep  silent  at  his  com¬ 
mand?  I  can  pity  the  Irish  Roman  Catholic;  but  I 
can  only  despise  the  American  politician. 

There  are  those  who,  at  this  great  juncture  of 
public  affairs,  do  precisely  what  such  men  have  done 
in  all  exigencies  of  public  affairs,  who  say  that 
“  all  this  agitation  is  premature;  the  time  has  not 
come  for  it.  Better  not  say  it.”  Did  I  hear  any 
pulpit  in  Worcester  say  that,  when  speaking  of  us? 
I  think  I  . did.  “  It  is  true  ;  but  better  not  say  it.” 
So  they  said  when  Patrick  Henry,  in  the  House  of 
Burgesses,  in  Virginia,  while  George  IH.  was 
oppressing  the  colonies,  cried:  “Caesar  had  his 
Brutus,  Charles  I.  his  Cromwell,  and  George  the 
Third”  (then  they  cried  “  Treason,  Treason”  all  about 
the  house  :  it  was  premature,  this  agitation ;  hut 
that  man  of  thunder  hurled  out  his  final  word)  “  and 
George  III.  should  profit  by  such  examples.”  The 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


367 


men  that  dare  to  be  called  “premature”  in  agitating 
great  interests,  are  the  men  that  we  must  look  to  for 
leadership.  Were  not  Samuel  Adams  and  James 
Otis  called  premature  in  their  agitation  in  the  Revo¬ 
lutionary  days?  Were  not  Garrison  and  Phillips  a 
little  premature  in  forcing  the  barbarism  of  slavery 
on  an  unwilling  country?  Were  they  not?  Are 
those  who  deprecate  agitation  to  consent  to  have 
the  millions  plundered  and  the  nation  threatened? 

Nor  can  we  trust  for  leadership  those  who  say  out 
of  their  sentiment  and  kind  feeling  :  “  I  dislike  very 
much  to  make  an  attack  on  anybody,  because  I  have 
friends  who  are  Roman  Catholics,  and  it  disturbs 
me  exceedingly  to  think  that  anything  should  be  said 
detrimental  to  them.”  Mv  friends,  I  have  never  said 
a  word  from  this  pul  pit  against  Roman  Catholics  as 
men,  and  never  shall  ;  but  if  I  should  cease  to  speak 
against  the  machinations  of  the  Romish  hierarchy,  I 
pray  that  God  may  let  me  die  before  my  shame 
becomes  known  to  freemen. 

I  know  men  who  sell  liquor  who  are  gentlemen  in 
their  manner,  beneficent  in  their  gifts,  in  their  social 
life  are  delightful,  and  educated  intellectually. 
Because  of  my  friendship  for  those  men,  am  I  to  be 
silent  about  the  curse  of  the  saloon?  We  knew 
men  years  ago  who  were  slave-holders,  who  said  that 
they  deprecated  all  the  dreadful  things  of  slave  hold¬ 
ing  as  much  as  we  did.  Beeause  I  shake  hands  with 
the  lily-fingered  slave  holder,  should  I  lose  by  that 
grip  all  the  muscle  which  should  break  a  shackle  and 
free  a  man?  I  look  on  the  Roman  Catholic  people 


368 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


of  this  city  and  of  the  world  with  kindness.  Even 
their  priests  are  not  the  objects  of  my  dislike  in  any 
degree.  But  because  I  have  a  priest  a  friend,  or  a 
layman  a  friend,  shall  I  therefore  permit  them  and 
the  nation  to  be  trampled  down  for  lack  of  a  brave 
word  ? 

My  friends,  we  cannot  look  to  timid  sentimental¬ 
ists  or  begging  politicians  to  lead  us.  We  want 
leaders  :  whom  shall  we  look  to  ?  Let  us  do  as  men 
have  always  had  to  do,  who  had  heard  God’s  call  to 
dut}7.  Let  us  look  to  our  God  and  to  ourselves,  and 
do  our  duty  without  any  other  leadership,  rather 
than  wait  to  follow  blind  leaders  of  the  blind. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  want  of  leadership  in 
this  matter,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  very  inter¬ 
esting  fact.  There  is  a  law  in  this  country  forbidding 
the  importation  of  contract  labor.  There  is  great 
zeal  in  enforcing  that  law,  on  the  part  of  officials 
generally.  This  law  was  made,  I  suppose,  in  the 
interests (  ?)  of  the  voter;  and  I  suppose  very  largely 
in  the  interests  of  the  foreign  voter  :  they  who  rose 
up  and  said,  You  have  imported  enough,  now  wait 
and  £>ive  us  a  chance.  And  our  subservient  lesjsla- 
lures  said,  No  more  contract  labor  imported.  How 
is  that  law  applied?  Not  long  since,  the  Lev.  Mr. 
Berry  was  called  to  Plymouth  church,  Brooklyn. 
If  he  had  come,  he  would  have  been  compelled  to 
pay  a  fine  of  $1,000  to  the  United  States  government,, 
because  he  came  under  contract.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Warren  was  called  to  Trinity  Church,  New  York, 
the  richest  Episcopalian  Church  in  America  :  he  was 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


369 


sued  because  he  came  over  under  contract  and  was 
adjudged  to  pay  a  tine  of  $1 ,000.  What  have  we  seen 
here  in  Worcester  ?  We  have  a  parochial  school  formed 
here,  and  as  far  as  the  chain  of  testimony  is  known  to 
me,  we  have  the  following  facts :  We  have  four 
Irish  Brothers  imported  from  across  the  sea  to  teach 
us  —  what?  To  teach  us  how  to  be  like  Ireland?  I 
hope  not.  How  did  they  come?  I  am  told  by  those 
wTho  read  the  Roman  Catholic  papers,  that  it  was 
announced  at  a  certain  time,  that  a  priest  in  this  city 
was  ^oing  to  Ireland  to  <^et  such  men.  It  was 
afterwards  announced  that  he  had  £one  to  Ire- 
land  to  get  such  men.  Then  it  was  reported 
that  he  had  secured  such  men ;  and  the  next 
thing  we  knew,  the  men  were  in  our  midst. 
Now  the  law  of  the  United  States  says,  that  whether 
contract  be  expressed  or  implied,  if  these  men  come 
for  their  board,  or  come  for  ten  thousand  a  year,  it 
makes  no  difference.  If  they  are  engaged  for  ser¬ 
vice  beforehand,  then  it  is  violation  of  the  law  of 
contract  labor.  Why  does  not  some  lawyer  in  this 
assembly  rise  up  and  test  the  law?  Why  does  not 
the  District  Attorney  find  out  whether  the  occupation 
of  the  teachers  of  this  city  has  been  put  in  jeopardy 
by  having  teachers  imported  in  violation  of  the  law 
of  contract  labor?  Why  do  not  the  teachers  combine 
to  press  the  case,  and  learn  their  rights  under  the  law  ? 
Surely,  it  is  much  better  to  have  honest  and  compe¬ 
tent  workmen  brought  here  under  contract,  than  men 
sworn  to  a  foreign  allegiance,  to  teach  hatred  of 
American  liberty  and  free  institutions. 


370 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


A  gardener  coming,  not  long  ago,  I  think,  for  a 
gentleman  in  Massachusetts,  a  nice  Scotchman,'  a 
clean,  tine  man,  was  sent  back  because  he  came  under 
contract.  Why  not  an  emissary  of  the  Italian  prince- 
pope  ?  It  might  not  be  best  for  a  minister  to  prose¬ 
cute  this  matter  personally,  perhaps  ;  for  he  does  not 
wish  to  be  too  much  entangled  with  the  affairs  of  the 
world  ;  but  if  any  man  here  is  a  lawyer,  or  a  teacher, 
or  a  business-man,  and  interested  in  the  law  of  con¬ 
tract  labor,  why,  gentlemen,  you  have  my  permis¬ 
sion,  you  have  my  sanction  and  my  benediction,  if 
you  will  find  out  whether  that  law  has  been  violated 
by  having  those  men  imported  hither  ;  and  we  would 
be  very  glad  to  have  you  take  up  an  evening  on  this 
platform  in  reporting  the  results  of  your  investiga¬ 
tions,  if  it  seemed  best.  But  I  am  compelled  to 
draw  to  a  close. 

VII.  There  are  two  or  three  remarks,  however, 
that  ought  to  be  made,  before  we  part  with  this  sub¬ 
ject  of  parochial  schools.  They  have  a  practical 
bearing  on  the  matter,  and  I  think  that  they  will  so 
impress  you.  Suppose  all  the  Roman  Catholic  chil¬ 
dren  are  taken  out  of  our  schools  and  put  in  paro¬ 
chial  schools,  to  be  taught  according  to  the  standards 
and  purposes  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  They 
are  not  going  to  get  the  same  kind  of  education  that 

is  received  outside  those  schools.  If  they  were 

*/ 

to  receive  the  same  kind  of  education  afforded  by 
our  schools,  then  they  would  not  be  taken  from  our 
schools.  We  are  to  have,  then,  on  the  one  hand, 
American  education, — for  the  public  schools  are  not 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


371 


sectarian,  in  any  sense — and,  on  the  other  hand,  Ro¬ 
man  Catholic  education.  All  denominations  of  Chris¬ 
tians,  and  people  not  Christians,  send  their  children 
to  the  public  schools  ;  and  they  are  taught  according 
to  the  general  standards  of  truth  on  which  this  nation 
exists.  In  this  camp,  then,  you  have  American  edu¬ 
cation  :  in  that,  you  have  Roman  Catholic  education. 
Now,  do  you  not  see  that,  from  their  earliest  child¬ 
hood,  the  children  are  to  be  brought  into  hostility 
and  antagonism  to  one  another?  For,  while  the 
children  of  the  public  schools  may  cherish  a  mag¬ 
nanimous  feeling  toward  those  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
schools,  you  know  that  Romish  education  is  never 
magnanimous — never.  You  remember  the  charming 
talk  we  had  the  other  Sunday  morning  from  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Beaudry,  who  said  to  me  (speaking  of  his  early 
education)  :  “My  mother,  who  was  a  saint,  told  me 
the  following,  when  I  was  a  child  :  She  said,  ‘Martin 
Luther  was  so  bad  a  man  that,  before  he  died,  the 
tires  of  hell  burned  within  him.  They  burned  so 
fiercely  that  he  would  shriek  and  scream  with  anguish 
because  of  their  flame  and  heat.  He  used  to  be 
put,’  said  .my  mother,  ‘in  a  tub  of  cold  water,  and 
the  water,  in  a  few  moments,  would  boil  around  him, 
because  of  the  tires  of  hell  that  were  in  him.’”  And 
he  said  :  “I  believed  that,  and  was  trained  up  in 
that  belief;  and  Luther  and  Lucifer  were  inter¬ 
changeable  terms  in  my  early  thought.”  Now,  he 
told  this,  as  being  a  matter  of  education  in  his  early 
life  and  experience. 


372 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

This  gentlemanly  man  who  stood  here,  who  was 
converted  after  nearly  three  years’  study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  said  that  was  what  he  was  taught. 
Do  you  not  see  that,  if  any  approximation  to  that  is 
taught, —  if  the  history  which  Rome  teaches  and 
tolerates  is  taught, — we  are  to  have  hostile  camps  of 
American  citizens  growing  up  ;  or  rather,  American 
citizens  on  the  one  side,  and  devotees  of  Rome  on 
the  other?  What  does  that  promise  for  the  future 
of  the  nation?  I  see  in  it  only  threatenings  of  evil. 
But  in  Roman  Catholic  schools,  it  is  possible  that  the 
study  of  history  may  be  forbidden. 

An  ex-Roman  Catholic,  writing  in  the  Congrega- 
tionalist  of  September  27,  states  the  following  :  “In 
Ireland,  where  priestly  power  is  supreme,  no  history 
is  allowed  to  be  taught.  The  children  maybe  taught 
anything — Greek  and  Latin  roots,  algebra,  chemistry 
— everything,  in  fact,  except  history  :  but  history 
and  the  Bible  are  forbidden.  Are  the  rising  ^ene- 
rations  of  the  American  children  to  be  forbidden  the 
knowledge  of  history  as  it  is,  or  of  the  Bible?  The 
Bible  is  forbidden  :  is  history  to  be  forbidden  also  ?” 
I  am  told  that  the  History  substituted  for  Swinton’s 
in  Boston,  leaves  out  the  mention  of  Indulgences  as 
one  of  the  causes  of  the  Reformation.  Is  that  his¬ 
tory  which  suppresses  fact?  Is  that  history  which 
leaves  out  truth?  Is  that  what  children  are  to  be 
taught?  Are  facts  to  be  left  out,  until  only  so  much 
remains  as  will  indorse  Romanism?  If  so,  all  will 
be  left  out;  for  there  is  no  history  that  indorses 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  373 

Romanism,  so  far  as  I  have  ever  been  able  to  find 
or  read. 

Finally,  we  are  told  that  some  of  our  schoolhouses 
in  this  State  are  almost  empty  now  ;  and  we  are  con¬ 
fronted  with  the  practical  fact,  that  so  largely  have 
the  parochial  schools  drawn  on  the  attendance  at  these 
schools,  that  now  there  is  no  need  of  those  buildings 
for  school  purposes.  They  stand  empty.  Confronted 
with  such  a  problem,  what  are  we  to  do  with  those 
buildings?  I  have  a  little  plan  in  my  mind,  which  I 
think  would  work  well.  There  is  a  good  deal  said 
now  about  industrial  education  ;  and  in  those  build¬ 
ings,  by  means  of  the  lathe,  the  chisel  and  the  brush, 
I  would  teach  the  young  to  earn  their  living  by  cun¬ 
ning  handicraft  and  skill.  And,  my  friends,  I  would 
turn  some  of  those  empty  school-buildings  into  refor¬ 
matories  and  penal  institutions  ;  and  I  would  see  that 
they  were  provided  with  proper  guardians  and  over¬ 
seers  ;  and  that  truth,  morality,  and  righteousness 
were  taught  in  them.  And  it’  we  should  turn  these 
empty  school-buildings  into  reformatory  institutions, 
and  put  over  them  proper  persons,  I  think  it  is  pretty 
certain  that  we  should  have  a  very  considerable  per¬ 
centage  of  the  attendants  at  parochial  schools  back 
in  them  after  a  very  short  time. 


Sermon  HEL 


THE  ROMISH  CONFESSIONAL:  WHAT  IT  IS,  AND 

WHAT  IT  DOES. 

“And  forgive  us  our  debts,  ;is  we  forgive  our 
debtors.  For  if  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses, 
your  heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive  you.  But  if 
ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your 
Father  forgive  your  trespasses.”  Gospel  according 
to  St.  Matthew,  6th  chapter,  12,  14  and  15  verses. 
Also  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,. 5th  chapter,  16th 
verse  :  “Confess  your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray 
one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be  healed.” 

In  the  presence  of  the  great  God  against  whom 
we  have  all  sinned,  and  in  whose  sight  we  have  all 
done  evil,  we  solemnly  undertake  to-night,  not 
merely  the  ungrateful  task  of  pointing  out  the  errors 
and  crimes  of  the  ecclesiastical  confessional ;  but,  in 
contrast  thereto,  of  inquiring,  What  is  the  true  con¬ 
fession  which  every  soul  should  make  to  a  holy  and 
righteous  God?  As  there  is  no  creed,  no  system,  no 
form  of  faith  which  does  not  recognize  the  fact  of  sin 
against  God  and  his  law  ;  so  there  is  no  creed  or  sys¬ 
tem  which  must  not,  of  necessity,  recognize  the  de- 
sirability  and  necessity  of  our  becoming  so  adjusted 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


375 


to  the  God  against  whom  we  have  sinned  that  we 
can  live  in  peace  with  Him.  All  systems  of  religion, 
nearly,  embrace  the  principle  of  sacrifice  ;  and  sacri¬ 
fice  is  always  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  to 
placate  the  God  against  whom  he  has  offended. 
Whatever  may  be  our  association  with  men,  and 
whatever  may  be  our  harmony,  or  want  of  harmony, 
with  the  laws  and  statutes  of  the  State,  the  relations 
which  we  sustain  to  God,  and  those  alone,  can  prop¬ 
erly  be  designated  as  sinful  or  righteous.  Against 
the  laws  of  the  State  we  can  say  that  we  commit 
crime,  but  we  do  not  say  we  commit  sin  ;  for  sin  is  a 
transgression  of  the  law  of  God ;  and  he  who  com¬ 
mits  sin  offends  directly  the  Majesty  of  heaven. 
Therefore,  the  sinner  must  come  to  God;  or  hear 
from  God  concerning  away  of  forgiveness,  in  order 
that  he  may  be  saved. 

Confession  is  necessary  in  order  to  pardon.  “Who¬ 
so  covereth  his  sin,  shall  not  prosper;  but  whoso 
confesseth  and  forsaketh  them,  shall  find  mercy.” 
On  the  deep  principles  of  that  philosophy  which 
understands  thoroughly  human  nature,  is  based  the 
duty  of  confession.  No  one  is  in  a  condition  to  be 
pardoned  for  the  guilt  that  he  has  acquired,  while  he 
covers  and  denies  his  fault ;  but  in  that  moment 
when  he  honestly  confesses  the  same,  he  has  put 
himself  in  a  condition  whereby,  other  arrangements 
being  made  on  the  part  of  the  just  God,  he,  on  his 
part,  can  be  relieved  from  the  burden  of  guilt  and 
sin. 


\ 


* 


37fi  li  or  nanism  and  the  Republic. 

In  that  wonderful  prayer  from  which  the  first  of 
our  texts  is  taken,  our  blessed  Lord  tells  us  where 
to  go,  and  how,  in  order  that  we  may  he  forgiven 
our  trespasses  and  discharged  of  our  debts.  No  sug¬ 
gestion  of  any  other  interposition  than  His  own  is 
implied  ;  no  intimation  that  any  other  person  than 
God  need  be  approached.  Here,  the  child  who  ad¬ 
dresses  his  Father-God,  and  who  asks  with  the  faith 
of  the  little  sparrows,  assisted  by  the  majestic  reason 
of  the  man,  for  daily  bread  ;  and  who,  in  his  love  of 
righteousness,  prays  for  the  coming  of  that  kingdom 
which  is  the  greatest  blessing  to  all  mankind, — the 
child,  recollecting  his  own  sin,  humbly  entreats  the 
divine  Father:  “Forgive:  forgive  us  our  debts,  as 
we  forgive  our  debtors.” 

Where  is  there  any  suggestion  that  any  person 
other  than  God  need  be  present  with  this  humble 
and  penitent  soul  when  he  prays,  in  order  that  he 
may  be  relieved  of  his  debt,  and  forgiven  his  tres¬ 
passes?  Or  if  we  turn  to  the  text  in  St.  James, 
which  has  been  made  much  of  by  those  who  distort 
the  Scriptures  to  favor  auricular  confession,  we  hear 
it  said:  “Confess  your  faults  one  to  another,  and 
pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be  healed.”  In 
this  Apostolic  declaration,  it  is  evident  that  one  man 
is  under  just  as  much  obligation  to  confess  his  fault 
as  is  another;  and  that  if  there  is  any  law  by  which 
a  man  is  to  confess  his  sins  to  a  priest,  by  that  same 
law  the  priest  is  to  confess  his  sins  to  that  man  ;  and 
if  it  be  necessary  that  the  priest  should  pray  for  a 
man  in  order  that  the  man  should  be  forgiven,  it  is 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


377 


equally  necessary  that  the  man  should  pray  for  the 
priest  in  order  that  the  priest  may  be  forgiven. 
“Confess  your  faults  one  to  another ,  and,  pray  one  for 
another ,  that  ye  may  be  healed.”  “The  effectual 
fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much 
but  if  the  man  who  offers  the  prayer  is  not  a  right¬ 
eous  man,  whether  he  be  priest,  bishop,  or  pope,  his 
prayer  availeth  nothing. 

The  divine  mystery  of  forgiveness  has  a  deeper 
signification  than  appears  on  the  surface,  with  which 
you  who  have  heard  the  Gospel  all  your  lives  are 
entirely  familiar.  The  provision  for  human  forgive¬ 
ness  and  salvation  is  by  one  great  sacrifice,  that  of 
Jesus  Christ, — by  one  great  mediator,  Jesus  Christ, 
— by  one  great  high  priest,  Jesus  Christ ;  and  by 
Him  alone. 

Now,  on  the  evidence  of  perverted  Scriptural 
texts — of  casuistry,  which  is  unreasonable — of  super¬ 
stitions,  which  cannot  stand  the  light  of  truth — in 
the  interests  of  priestly  tyranny  and  ecclesiastical 
emolument,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  built  up, 
in  the  face  of  Heaven,  the  tower  of  auricular  confes¬ 
sion,  far  more  injurious  to  mankind  than  the  tower 
of  Babel  ever  was,  and  producing  more  confusion  in 
the  minds  of  their  devotees  than  ever  that  Baby¬ 
lonian  tower  produced  in  the  tongues  of  its  builders. 
Auricular  confession  is  one  with  the  boundless  cor¬ 
ruptions  of  an  immoral  theology — of  Pope  worship, 
image  worship,  mass  worship,  saint  worship, — is  a 
part  of  paganism,  from  first  to  last ;  creates  a  thou¬ 
sand  times  more  sin  than  ever  it  rid  the  world  of; 


378 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 

puts  an  iron  collar  around  the  neck  of  every  Roman 
Catholic,  and  drags  him,  heart-broken  and  unhelped, 
behind  the  car  of  ecclesiastical  espionage  and  of 
papal  power.  Confession  is  necessary,  according  to' 
the  reasoning  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in 
order  to  absolution  ;  absolution  is  necessary  in  order 
to  the  communion  ;  the  communion,  or  the  mass,  is 
necessary  in  order  to  salvation;  and,  therefore,  the 
confessional  must  precede  salvation,  and  every  man 
must  be  drawn  through  it  to  be  saved. 

I  am  reminded  of  those  tires  of  Moloch  through 
which  the  children  of  the  heathen  were  drawn  in 
order  to  be  saved ;  and  I  truly  think  that  they  got 
as  near  to  God  when  they  were  drawn  through  the 
tires  of  Pagan  idolatry,  as  the  Roman  Catholic  can 
get  by  being  dragged  through  the  slums  of  auricular 
confession. 

A  very  distinguished  and  learned  priest,  in  New 
York,  only  a  few  days  ago,  stated  to  me,  that  it  was  just 
here  the  light  dawned  upon  his  mind  with  reference 
to  the  falsities  of  the  church  in  which  he  found  himself. 
This  very  distinguished  priest  said  :  “I  found  myself 
live  hundred  miles  from  any  other  priest  in  Dakota. 
The  nearest  priest  to  me  was  an  illiterate  man — a 
man,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  no  elevation  of  character. 
I  remembered  while  there,  that  if  I  were  dying,  it 
would  be  necessary  for  me  to  confess  and  receive 
absolution  and  extreme  unction  ;  and  I  knew  that  it 
was  impossible  for  me  to  get  the  priest  there,  so  that 
I  mhdit  confess  and  receive  his  absolution  ;  there- 
fore,”  he  said,  “it  dawned  upon  my  mind  that  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


379 


church  had  exacted  of  me  ail  impossibility ;  that  I 
could  not  pass  through  the  ceremonial  of  confession 
and  absolution  and  extreme  unction,  because  I  was  a 
missionary,  and  live  hundred  miles  from  any  other 
priest ;  therefore  I  was  sure  to  be  lost.”  And  he 
said  :  “As  I  walked  the  hills  of  Dakota  and  medi¬ 
tated  on  that,  it  so  opened  my  mind  to  the  falsehoods 
of  the  theology  to  which  I  was  bound,  that  at  length, 
having  fully  considered  it  and  made  up  my  mind  that 
it  was  all  wrong,  I  sat  down  and  wrote  a  letter  to  my 
bishop,  saying  that  I  resigned  my  charge.  I  packed 
up  what  little  effects  I  had  (I  left  three  or  four  hun¬ 
dred  dollars  of  salary  that  I  suppose  I  had  a  right  to), 
and  directed  my  steps  to  New  York,  where  I  might 
meet  men  who  would  tell  me  more  plainly  the  way 

A 

of  life.”  And  I  said  :  “I  wonder  why  it  is,  Doctor, 
(  lie  held  his  doctorate  of  divinity  from  the  Roman 
University,)  that  you  were  so  many  years  finding 
this  out.”  He  said  :  “I  cannot  tell  you,  sir.  It  is 
a  strange  fatuity  that  holds  us ;  but  how  plain  it  is 
when  once  we  turn  our  reason  upon  it.” 

It  is  in  the  confessional  that  Rome  has  its  strong:- 
est  hold  upon  its  devotees.  It  is  here  that  you  find 
the  reason  why  the  men  who  are  ashamed  of  the 
falsehoods  of  their  faith  cannot  break  with  it ;  be- 
cause  the  spies  of  the  confessional  are  continually  on 
their  tracks,  searching  their  inmost  thoughts  and 
daily  actions  ;  and  there  is  not  an  hour  in  which 
they  are  free  from  the  oversight  of  their  tyrants,  who 
'watch  them  with  the  purpose  of  holding  them  still 
captives. 


380 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


It  is  my  purpose  on  this  and  on  subsequent  occa¬ 
sions,  to  open  the  door  of  the  confessional,  and  to 
reveal,  as  it  is,  this  sacrament,  so-called,  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  which,  more  than  any  other 
power,  restrains  the  liberties  of  her  people,  mental 
and  spiritual ;  and  in  order  that  in  our  consideration 
of  it  you  may  know  that  what  I  state  will  bear  the 
scrutiny  of  the  most  careful  eye, 

1.  I  propose  to  state  who  are  the  witnesses 
whom  I  summon  in  order  to  tell  you  about  the  con¬ 
fessional.  It  is  necessary,  of  course,  that  those  wit¬ 
nesses  should  be  unimpeachable.  I  have  heard  no 
answer  yet  to  the  suggestion  which  I  made,  that  if 
the  Roman  Catholic  priests  or  people  were  disposed 
to  controvert  my  views  publicly,  they  should  have 
the  opportunity ;  but,  none  the  less,  I  am  resolved 
that  every  word  that  I  speak  shall  be  so  established 
that  there  can  be  no  successful  contradiction  of  it. 
One  of  the  authors  from  whom  I  shall  quote  most 
freely  to-night,  says:  “  In  contending  with  Rome, 
be  sure  you  give  your  authorities  ;  because  it  is  the 
fashion  and  usage  of  that  Church  to  deny  what  is  not 
incontestably  proven  against  it.” 

The  first  authority  that  I  shall  quote  is  De  Sanctis, 
concerning  whom  we  have  the  following  facts,  which 
will  interest  this  audience.  “  Dr.  De  Sanctis  was 

i 

thoroughly  versed  in  the  mysteries  of  the  confes¬ 
sional,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  for 
fourteen  years  he  exercised  the  office  of  confessor, 
and  that  for  seven  he  held  the  highly  responsible 
post  of  parish  priest  at  Rome — being  thus,  in  con- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


381 


forinity  with  Papal  usage,  brought  into  intimate 
relation  with  the  secret  police  ;  while  for  ten  years 
he  fulfilled,  though  reluctantly,  the  office  of  consult- 
er  to  the  Roman  Inquisition,  and  would  hence  be 
introduced  behind  the  scenes  of  the  religious  and 
political  drama  enacted  at  the  Papal  See.”  It  is 
said  further  concerning  him,  that  “  fully  aware  of  the 
extent  of  the  loss  he  was  about  to  undergo  ;  knowing 
that  he  exchanged  honor  for  disgrace,  wealth  for 
poverty,  fame  and  distinction  for  obscurity  and  dis¬ 
repute  ;  he  heeded  not  the  amount  of  the  sacrifice, 
but  forsaking  country,  family  and  friends,  he  counted 
all  things  but  dross,  so  that  he  might  enjoy  the  clear 
sunshine  of  an  untroubled  conscience,  and  proclaim 
with  untrammelled  freedom  the  rich  mercies  of  the 
Gospel,  in  all  their  purity  and  fulness.  It  is  curious 
that  for  his  emancipation  he  was  indebted  ta  one  of 
the  many  honors  heaped  on  him,  till  they  almost 
equalled  in  number  the  years  he  had  been  in  Holy 
Orders.  Being  appointed  to  deliver  a  course  of 
lectures  against  heretics,  he  received  a  license  to 
read  their  works.  Gradually,  the  light  of  Divine 
truth  dawned  more  and  more  clearly  on  his  mind  ; 
and  the  more  earnestly  he  strove  and  prayed  to  be 
led  into  the  right  way,  the  more  did  his  growing 
persuasion  of  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
deepen  in  intensity.  To  maintain  a  struggle  against 
conviction  was  inconsistent  with  the  candor  and 
the  integrity  conspicuous  in  the  character  of  De 
Sanctis  ;  and  henceforth  he  resolved  to  preach  the 


382 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


faith  which  he  lately  studied  to  destroy.”  (Preface 
to  De  Sanctis  on  The  Confessional.) 

There  is  no  more  reason  for  discrediting  De 
Sanctis  than  there  is  St.  Paul : .  he  followed  that 
illustrious  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  in  an  almost 
similar  course.  Pius  IX.  (at  that  time  Cardinal 
Feretti,)  went  to  Malta,  to  which  place  De  Sanctis 
was  exiled  ;  and,  falling  on  his  neck,  entreated  him 
with  all  the  art  of  which  he  was  capable,  to  return  to 
the  bosom  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  but  he 
preferred  poverty  and  exile  for  the  sake  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  From  him,  as  an  authority,  I  shall 
freely  quote,  holding  in  my  hand  a  book  of  his  writ¬ 
ing,  entitled:  “Confession:  a  Doctrinal  and  His¬ 
torical  Essay.” 

2.  I  shall  also  quote  Pierre  Hyacinthe,  whom  we 
know  as  Father  Hyacinthe,  the  distinguished 
preacher  at  the  Church  of  Notre  Dame  in  Paris. 
Notre  Dame  is  one  of  the  grandest  cathedrals  under 
whose  arches  man  ever  stood.  In  that  vast  church 
thousands  sat  to  listen  to  the  rare  eloquence  of  this 
man  ;  who,  finding  himself  at  variance  with  the  Pope 
and  the  theologians  of  Rome,  abandoned  the  highest 
honors,  and  took  an  obsure  position  as  preacher  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

3.  I  shall  also  quote  Charles  Chiniquy,  known  as 
Father  Chiniquy,  of  Canada,  who  was  fifty  years  a 
member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  twenty- 
three  years  a  priest.  Concerning  Father  Chiniquy, 
the  following  facts  may  interest  you,  as  showing 
That  he  was  fully  accredited  by  the  Roman  Catholic 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  383 

Church,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to  break  down  his 

testimony. 

«/ 

It  is  said  here  by  his  biographer  (Father  Chiniquy 
is  still  living;  he  spoke  in  Boston  two  weeks  ago), 
that  “  the  great  city  of  Montreal,  moved  to  gratitude 
by  his  service  to  the  cause  of  temperance,  presented 
him  with  a  gold  medal,  on  one  side  of  which  was  : 
“  To  Father  Chiniquy,  Apostle  of  Temperance, 
Canada,”  and  on  the  other,  “  Honor  to  his  Virtues, 
Zeal  and  Patriotism.”  Moreover,  the  Pope  extended 
to  him  his  blessing.  On  the  tenth  of  August,  1850, 

O  O  7  7 

a  letter,  of  which  the  following  is  a  translation,  and 
of  which  I  will  read  a  part,  was  sent  to  Canada  by 
Charles  T.  Baillargeon  :  “I  have  taken  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  present  to  him  (the  Pope)  your  book,  with 
the  letter,  which  he  has  received — I  do  not  say,  with 
that  goodness  which  is  so  eminently  characteristic — 
but  with  all  special  marks  of  satisfaction  and  of 
approbation,  while  charging  me  to  state  to  you  that 
he  accords  his  Apostolic  Benediction  to  you  and  to 
the  holy  work  of  temperance  which  you  preach.” 
Signed,  after  much  more  of  the  same  import, 

<  Charles  T.  Baillargeon,  Priest.” 

Moreover,  the  Bishop  of  Montreal,  when  Father 
Chiniquy,  in  1851,  left  his  old  field  for  a  new  one, 
wrote  him  a  letter  that  says,  among  other  things  : 
<£  You  ask  me  the  permission  to  leave  the  diocese  to 
offer  your  services  to  the  Monseigneur  of  Chicago. 
As  you  belong  to  the  diocese  of  Quebec,  I  believe 
that  it  appertains  to  Monseigneur  the  Archbishop 
to  give  vou  the  exeat  which  you  ask.  For  me,  I 


384 


Romanism,  and  the  Republic. 


cannot  but  thank  you  for  your  labors  among  us. 
You  shall  ever  be  in  my  remembrance  and  in  my 
heart,  and  I  hope  the  Divine  Providence  will  permit 
me  at  a  future  time  to  testify  to  you  all  the  gratitude 
that  I  feel  within  me.  Meanwhile,  I  remain,  dear 
sir,  Your  very  humble  and  obedient  servant, 

Ignatius, 

M.  Chiniquy,  Priest.  Bishop  of  Montreal . 

Many  times  since  then,  Roman  Catholic  mobs  have 
tried  to  kill  this  man,  and  still  he  lives  to  bear  wit¬ 
ness  against  the  evils  of  Romanism  and  the  wicked- 
ness  of  priests. 

4.  I  shall  also  quote  the  Rev.  Mr.  Aubin,  of  this 
city,  a  Baptist  minister,  brought  up  a  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic,  and  a  highly  reputable  man  among  us,  who  has 
told  me  some  things  concerning  the  conlesssional. 
I  shall  quote  also  from  the  Rev.  L.  N.  Beaudry,  who 
stood  in  this  pulpit  not  long  since  and  addressed 
this  congregation,  and  who  is  an  esteemed  minister 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

5.  I  shall  quote  also  from  J.  Blanco  White,  who 
for  many  years  was  a  priest  in  the  city  of  Seville  in 
Spain.  He  had  a  most  excellent  reputation  among 
all  men,  and  was  a  member  of  the  Protestant  Church 
for  the  space  of  fifteen  years,  after  renouncing  Rome. 

fi.  I  shall  quote  also  from  Henrietta  Carracciolo, 
who  was  the  daughter  of  Marshal  Carracciolo.  She 
gives  us  the  result  of  her  observations  and  experience 
ina  work  entitled  “Twenty  Years  in  aXeopolitan  Con¬ 
vent.”  The  high  character  of  this  lady,  not  excelled 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


385 


by  that  of  any  woman  in  the  world,  guarantees,  as 
does  the  corroboration  of  her  testimony,  the  reli¬ 
ability  other  words.  But  more  than  this.  These  are 
but  a  few  of  the  many  on  whose  testimony  I  shall  rely. 
I  shall  read  a  letter  in  one  of  these  books,  signed  by 
forty-nine  Roman  Catholic  women,  testifying  to  the 
abominableness  of  the  confessional.  These  forty- 
nine  are  only  a  part  of  hundreds  and  thousands  that 
in  Canada  have  renounced  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  and  have  become  Protestant  Christians.  I 
shall  quote  also  from  numerous  priests. 

In  order  that  you  may  know  that  what  I  state 
cannot  be  controverted,  even  from  the  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  standpoint,  I  shall  quote  the  theologians  of  Rome 
in  their  confessions  and  their  questions  to  priests. 

7.  For  example,  I  shall  quote  from  Kenrick’s 
“Theology,”  which  devotes  seventeen  pages  to  a  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  dangers  resulting  to  priests  in  the 
confessional,  from  the  character  of  questions  which 
they  are  compelled  to  ask.  I  can  give  you  the  asser¬ 
tions  of  Roman  Catholic  authorities  almost  without 
number. 

When  I  come  to  the  final  testimony,  that  is  to  be 
relied  upon  as  beyond  all  controversy,  I  shall  have 
in  my  possession  the  questions  which  the  young  priests 
are  taught  that  they  must  ask  in  the  confessional. 
I  was  given  by  a  priest,  the  other  day,  the  book 
which  he  studied  in  the  college  of  St.  Mary  in  Balti¬ 
more,  where  he  prepared  to  be  a  priest,  the  work  of 
Bishop  Bouvier,  al$>o  the  work  of  Peter  Dens,  also  of 
Liguori  and  of  Debreyne, — all  of  these  containing 


386 


Romanism  and  the  Republic, 


exactly  what  these  priests  are  compelled  to  study 
and  to  ask  of  their  penitents  in  the  confessional. 

low  my  friends,  something  is  to  follow  our  consi¬ 
deration  of  this  matter  ;  something  is  to  be  done  when 
we  have  learned  the  horrors  of  the  confessional. 
When  I  have  given  you  testimony  that  cannot  be 
controverted,  I  want  you  to  have  so  examined  it,  to 
so  listen  and  to  so  satisfy  yourselves,  that  if  you  are 
called  upon  to  vote  in  this  city  as  to  whether  Roman¬ 
ism  shall  dominate  our  schools  and  ourselves,  vou 
will  not  cringe  and  cower  as  so  many  times  our 
American  municipalities  have  done  ;  but  will  know 
enough,  and  have  courage  enough,  and  heart  and 
manhood  sufficient  to  say  to  Rome,  “Hands  off! 
You  are  not  tit  to  take  control  of  any  municipality 
in  the  nineteenth  century.”  In  other  words,  I  want 
you,  my  friends,  to  have  the  truth,  so  as  to  act  right ; 
to  act  with  that  vigor,  that  assurance,  that  honor  and 
that  fearlessness  with  which  our  heroes  acted  in  times 
gone  by,  when  their  convictions  had  to  change  for  a 
time  to  defensive  blows  to  save  the  nation  from  its 
enemies. 

2.  What,  then,  is  auricular  confession?  The  word 
“auricular”  means,  confession  in  the  ear ;  and  of 
course  it  means  confession  in  the  ear  of  a  priest. 

1.  Most  copious  authorities  prove  that  Roman 
Catholicism  has  borrowed  this,  as  it  has  borrowed 
many  other  things,  from  paganism.  I  have  here  a 
list  of  a  dozen  authorities  who  agree  in  the  following 

CD  CD 

facts:  “  Auricular  confession  was  enjoined  in  the 
Elusinian  Mysteries,  by  Zoroaster  in  Persia,  Buddha 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


387 


in  India,  and  was  practiced  by  the  ancient  Babylonians 
and  Egyptians,  the  Mexicans  before  Cortez,  the  Peru¬ 
vians  before  Pizarro,  by  the  Japanese,  the  Siamese, 
and  others.”  In  the  list  of  those  historians,  not  to  read 
them  all,  we  have  Wilkinson  in  his  “  Ancient  Egypt,” 
Bancroft  in  his  “Native  Races,”  and  other  equally 
reliable  authorities.  We  have  also  direct  testimony 
that  the  priests  of  Bacchus,  who  was  the  God  of  wine, 
listened  to  auricular  confession  ;  and  I  beg  you  to 
notice  what  is  said  by  a  distinguished  priest,  confirm¬ 
ing  the  truth  of  this  statement :  “  Nobody  can  be 
surprised  that  the  priests,  the  bishops  and  the  Popes 
of  Rome  are  sunk  into  such  a  bottomless  abyss  of 
infamy,  when  we  remember  that  they  are  nothing  else 
than  the  successors  of  the  priests  of  Bacchus  and 
Jupiter.  For  not  onljr  have  they  inherited  their 
powers  ;  but  they  have  even  kept  their  very  robes 
and  mantles  on  their  shoulders,  and  their  caps  on 
their  heads.  Like  the  priests  of  Bacchus,  the  priests 
of  the  Pope  are  bound  never  to  marry,  by  the  impi¬ 
ous  and  godless  laws  of  celibacy.  For  every  one 
knows  that  the  priests  of  Bacchus  were,  as  the  priests 
of  Rome,  celibates.  But,  like  the  priests  of  the  Pope, 
the  priests  of  Bacchus,  to  console  themselves  for  the 
restraints  of  celibacy,  had  invented  auricular  confes¬ 
sion.  Through  the  secret  confidences  of  the  confes- 
sional,  the  priests  of  the  old  idols,  as  well  as  those  of 
the  newly  invented  wafer-gods,  knew  who  were 
strong  and  weak  among  their  fair  penitents  ;  and 
under  the  veil  “of  the  sacred  mysteries,”  during  the 
night  celebration  of  their  diabolical  rites,  they  knewT 


388 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


to  whom  they  could  address  themselves,  and  make 
their  vows  of  celibacy  an  easy  yoke.”  44  Let  those 
who  want  more  information  on  that  subject  read  the 
poems  of  Juvenal,  Propertius,  and  Tibbellus.  Let 
them  peruse  all  the  historians  of  old  Lome,  and  they 
will  see  the  perfect  resemblance  which  exists  between 
priests  of  the  Pope  and  those  of  Bacchus,  in  reference 
to  the  vows  of  celibacy,  the  secrets  of  auricular 
confession,  celebration  of  the  so-called  44  sacred  mys¬ 
teries,”  and  the  unmentionable  moral  corruption  of 
the  two  systems  of  religion.  In  fact,  when  one  reads 
the  poems  of  Juvenal,  he  thinks  he  has  before  him 
the  books  of  Dens,  Liguori,  Debreyne,  and  Kenrick.” 

It  was  not  until  the  year  1215  that  auricular  con¬ 
fession  became  a  do°’ma  of  the  Homan  Catholic 

O 

Church.  Prior  to  that  time,  confession  was  volun¬ 
tary.  At  that  time  Innocent  III.  issued  to  the  Lat¬ 
eral!  Council  the  edict  by  which,  from  that  time, 
confession  became  compulsory  ;  so,  evidently,  it  is 
one  of  the  later  dogmas  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  As  Roman  Catholics  are  compelled  to  be¬ 
lieve,  since  1850,  in  the  Immaculate  Conception,  and, 
since  1870,  in  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  ;  so,  since 
1215,  they  have  been  compelled  to  believe  in  Auricu¬ 
lar  Confession,  under  penalty  of  mortal  sin. 

2.  Where  is  this  confession  heard?  If  you  go 
into  a  Roman  Catholic  Church,  you  are  likely  to  see 
what  are  called  confessional  boxes.  They  are  little 
houses,  large  enough  on  the  inside  for  one  or  two  per¬ 
sons  to  sit.  There  is  a  grated  window,  at  which  the 
penitent  kneels,  on  the  outside.  You  find  these  in 


Romanism  and  the  Rejmblic. 


389 


all  the  great  Roman  Catholic  Churches  of  the  Old 
World;  and,  I  suppose,  in  this  country,  although  I 
have  visited  fewer  Roman  Catholic  Churches  here. 
The  priest,  sitting  in  the  inside  of  this  confessional- 
box,  as  it  is  called,  receives  the  confession  of  the 
kneeling  penitent  on  the  outside.  But  not  only 
there  :  the  confession  can  be  taken  in  a  private  house 
or  private  room,  as  we  have  known  in  this  city  of  a 
priest  taking  the  confession  from  his  penitent  in  his 
parlor.  It  may  also  be  received  in  the  sick  room, 
on  the  dying  bed ;  but  is  always,  I  believe,  con¬ 
ducted  in  private,  only  the  priest  and  the  penitent 
being  present.  Now,  who  are  compelled  to  confess? 

3.  The  answer  to  that  question  is,  that  every¬ 
body  is  compelled  to  confess  ;  and  that  everybody  is 
compelled  to  confess  everything.  For  instance  ;  I 
find  here,  from  “Butler’s  Catechism” — a  standard 
authority  —  the  following  statement,  approved  by 
several  bishops  of  Quebec.  On  page  G2  it  reads  : 
“That  all  penitents  should  examine  themselves  on 
the  capital  sins,  and  confess  them  all,  without  excep¬ 
tion,  under  penalty  of  eternal  damnation.”  We  find 
in  this  book  of  De  Sanctis,  on  page  21,  that  confes¬ 
sion  is  absolutely  necessary  for  forgiveness  and  sal¬ 
vation.  In  Bishop  Hay’s  “Sincere  Christian,”  the 
following  question  and  answer  occur:  “Is  this  [au¬ 
ricular]  confession  of  our  sins  necessary  for  obtain¬ 
ing  absolution?  It  is  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ  as 
absolutely  necessary  for  this  purpose.”  We  have, 
on  the  118th  page,  this  statement:  “In  Rome,  all 
religious  instruction  consists  in  teaching  the  people 


390 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


to  confess.  Confession  and  Roman  Christianity  are 
their  convertible  terms.  Do  you  wish  to  know  a 
so-called  good  Christian  ?  It  is  he  who  confesses 
frequently.  Do  you  wish  to  carry  a  certificate  of 
Christianity  ?  Carry  a  certificate  of  confession.  The 
servants  of  the  Cardinals  cannot  touch  their  wages 
at  the  beginning  of  the  month,  unless  they  pre¬ 
sent  the  certificate  of  confession.  Meanwhile,  relig¬ 
ious  ignorance  is  such,  that  they  do  not  even  know 
that  there  is  a  book  called  the  Bible,  containing  the 
Word  of  God.  The  people’s  article  of  faith  is:  ‘I 
believe  all  that’  the  Holy  Church  believes.’  Such 
religious  ignorance  engenders  superstitions,  infidelity, 
immorality,  and  the  loss  of  souls.  But  what  signi¬ 
fies  it?  Such  ignorance  maintains  confession?”  That 
is  by  De  Sanctis,  who  himself  heard  confessions  in 
Rome  for  many  years. 

4.  Now,  as  to  the  frequency  of  confession  :  the 
more  frequent  the  confession,  the  more  pious  the 
person  who  confesses  is  supposed  to  be.  When 
Martin  Luther  was  in  the  bondage  of  Rome,  he  was 
accustomed  to  confess  every  day,  and  sometimes 
more  than  once  a  day.  Other  priests  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  are  reported  to  confess  once  a  day, 
and  once  a  week ;  and  sometimes  the  nuns,  it  is  said, 
remain  for  two  and  three  hours  in  the  confessional, 
two  or  three  times  a  day  !  But  it  is  absolutely  neces¬ 
sary,  in  order  that  a  person  shall  have  any  standing- 
in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  that  he  shall  take  the 
communion  at  least  once  a  year,  and  he  cannot  take 
the  communion  without  confessing  prior  to  it,  and 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


391 


receiving  the  absolution  of  the  priest.  Therefore, 
the  Roman  Catholic  must  confess  once  a  year,  and  is 
commended  for  confessing  as  frequently  as  once  a 
day. 

5.  What  must  be  confessed?  I  already  have 
read  you  one  authority,  “Butler’s  Catechism,”  with 
reference  to  that.  But,  further,  I  answer,  the  person 
who  confesses  to  the  priest,  must  confess  every  deed, 
every  word,  every  thought,  every  dream.  He  must 
confess  everything  that  has  passed  in  his  mind,  or 
passed  in  his  words,  or  in  his  acts,  concerning  which 
he  is  doubtful,  and  concerning  Which  he  is  not  in 
doubt.  Let  me  give  you  an  authority  for  that  state¬ 
ment :  “When  the  Council  of  Lateran  decided  that 
every  adult,  of  either  sex,  should  confess  all  their 
sins  to  a  priest  at  least  once  a  year,  there  was  no 
exception  made  for  any  special  class  of  sins,  not  even 
those  committed  against  modesty  or  purity.  And 
when  the  Council  of  Trent  ratified  or  renewed 
the  previous  decision,  no  exception  was  made, 
either,  of  the  sins  in  question.  They  were  ex¬ 
pected  and  ordered  to  be  confessed  as  all  other 
sins.  The  law  of  both  Councils  is  still  unre- 
pealed,  and  binding  for  all  sins,  without  any  ex¬ 
ception.”  It  is  imperative,  absolute ;  and  every 
good  Catholic,  man  or  woman,  must  submit  to  it,  by 
confessing  all  his  or  her  sins,  at  least  once  a  year. 
The  celebrated  controversial  catechism  of  Rev. 
Stephen  Keenan,  approved  by  the  bishops  of  Ireland, 
positively  says  (page  18(1)  :  “The  penitent  must 
confess  all  his  sins.”  And  anything  left  out  of  the 


392 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


confession  so  vitiates  it,  that  it  is  not  a  good  confes¬ 
sion.  If  a  person  goes  to  the  confessional  and  con¬ 
fesses  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred  sins,  and  leaves 
out  that  one  sin,  the  confession  is  of  nothing  worth. 
I  want  you  to  notice  this  ;  because  of  the  tortures  that 
it  inflicts  on  conscientious  people  who  go  to  the  con¬ 
fession.  They  are  requested  and  desired  to  recall 
every  sin,  every  thought,  word,  dream,  imagination 
that  they  have  had  which  may  be  considered  a  sin, 
mortal  or  venial.  If  they  try  to  do  it,  they  may  fail. 
If  they  fail,  they  cannot  be  absolved  for  the  sin  ;  and 
if  they  fail  in  confessing  everything,  they  are  lost. 
Thev  struggle  to  find  the  sins — all  of  them, — and  in 
their  struggle  reveal  a  thousand  things  which  should 
never  be  on  human  lips  ;  at  least,  which  should  never 
pass  between  any  man  or  woman  and  the  celibate 
priest  in  the  privacy  of  the  confessional.  But  Father 
Chiniquy  says,  that  the  fear  and  anguish  which  many 
conscientious  Roman  Catholics  have,  lest  their  con¬ 
fession  is  not  a  good  one,  is  a  source  of  continual 
distress  to  them. 

Moreover,  these  fears  as  to  the  quality  of  the  con¬ 
fession  not  only  work  exceeding  grief  to  a  soul,  but 
they  afford  an  opportunity  for  the  diabolical  ingenu¬ 
ity  of  the  bad  priests  to  question  and  search  and 
probe  and  discover  the  deepest,  the  minutest,  and 
the  most  sacred  secrets  of  the  soul.  “Though  the 
penitent  is  told  that  he  must  confess  his  thoughts 
only  according  to  his  best  recollection,  he  will  never, 
never  know  if  he  has  done  his  best  to  remember 
everything ;  he  will  constantly  fear  lest  he  has  not 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


393 


■done  his  best  to  count  and  confess  them  correctly.” 
“  Every  honest  priest,  if  he  speak  the  truth,  will  at 
once  admit  that  his  most  intelligent  and  pious  peni¬ 
tents,  particularly  among  women,  are  constantly 
tortured  by  the  fear  of  having  omitted  to  confess 
some  sinful  deeds  or  thoughts.  Many  of  them,  after 
having  already  made  several  general  confessions  ”  (a 
general  confession  is  of  all  one’s  sins  from  the  begin- 
ning  of  one’s  life,)  “are  constantly  urged,  by  the 
pricking  of  their  conscience,  to  begin  afresh,  in  the 
fear  that  their  first  confessions  had  some  serious 
defects.  Those  past  confessions,  instead  of  being  a 
source  of  spiritual  joy  and  peace,  are,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  like  so  many  Damocles’  swords,  day  and  night 
suspended  over  their  heads,  filling  their  souls  with 
the  terrors  of  an  eternal  death.  Sometimes  the 
terror-stricken  consciences  of  those  honest  and  pious 
women  tell  them  that  they  were  not  sufficiently  con¬ 
trite  ;  at  another  time,  they  reproach  them  for  not 
having  spoken  sufficiently  plain  on  some  things  fitter 
to  make  them  blush.” 

But  there  is  a  deeper  dread  than  this  which  makes 
the  confession  an  engine  of  torture.  It  is  this : 
Every  sacrament  may  be  vitiated  and  made  of  none 
account  by  what  is  called  the  intention  of  the  py'iest. 
Now  the  Doctrine  of  Intention  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  is  this  :  suppose  that  a  priest  is  about  to  perform 
the  mass,  and  he  has  not  the  intention  of  really  per¬ 
forming  it,  then  the  bread  over  which  he  has  said  the 
mummery  of  the  mass,  is  not,  as  they  suppose,  the 
real  body  of  Christ,  but  only  bread  ;  and  therefore, 


394 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


for  them,  all  its  character  is  vitiated.  Suppose  that 
a  priest  stands  up  to  marry  a  man  and  a  woman,  and 
in  his  intention  he  resolves  that  the  ceremony  shall 
not  be  what  it  seems  to  be,  then  these  people  are 
not  married,  according  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.. 
Suppose  that  the  priest  hears  a  confession  in  the  con¬ 
fessional,  and  it  is  in  his  intention  that  the  words  of 
absolution  which  he  speaks  shall  not  really  absolve 
the  penitent,  then  the  penitent  is  not  absolved.  So  • 
a  vicious  priest,  who  has  not  the  intention  of  carrying 
out  the  sacraments  as  they  appear  on  the  surface,, 
may  jeopardize  the  eternal  salvation  of  every  soul 
who  confesses  to  him.  Do  you  see  in  what  torture- 
the  Roman  Catholic  is  ? 

Sometimes  people  are  inclined  to  go  over  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  because  they  are  so 
unspeakably  lazy  that  they  want  somebody  to  attend 
to  their  religion  for  them,  while  they  attend  to  the 
world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil ;  but  remember,  that  if 
you  go  over  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  if 
you  leave  the  intention  demanded  by  your  sins  to  a 
priest,  it  may  be  that  he  will  simply  make  an 
inclined  plane  for  you,  through  the  confessional  box, 
to  that  ruin  which  you  are  trying  to  escape. 

The  probing  questions  of  the  priests  enter  deep 
into  the  soul  of  the  penitent.  Back  of  every  word  I 
say  now,  there  is  a  revelation  that  I  must  not  make 
to  you  about  the  questions  that  the  priests,  from  the 
time  they  begin  to  take  confession,  are  permitted, 
commanded,  and  compelled  to  ask. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic.  395 

I  remember  hearing  the  story  told  by  Father 
Chiniquy  of  a  beautiful  woman  in  the  house  of  whose 
father  he  had  frequently  been  a  visitor,  coming  one 
day  to  his  confessional  box,  when  he  was  a  young 
priest.  She  knelt  down  beside  the  box  at  the  little 
grated  window,  and  her  deep  sobs  and  ejaculated 
prayers  wrung  his  heart,  for  he  knew  not  their  cause. 
When  he  gently  spoke  to  her,  she  answered,  and 
besought  him  in  the  name  of  all  that  was  good,  for 
the  sake  of  her  soul,  that  he  would  not  ask  her  the 
questions  that  her  former  two  confessors  had  asked. 
She  said  to  him  :  “  When  I  went  to  the  first,  I  was  a 
spotless,  stainless  woman.  He  asked  me  those 
questions  that  poisoned  and  degraded  my  soul  and 
blackened  my  life.  The  sin  which  followed  was  only 
the  natural  consequence.  I  left  him  in  the  bitterness 
of  my  spirit,  and  went,  after  a  year  of  sin,  to  another 
confessor,  an  old  man.  The  same  thins;  followed 
again  ;  and  now,”  said  she,  k<  I  come  to  you,  and  I  say 
to  you,  if  you  will  promise  not  to  ask  me  those  soul- 
damning  questions,  I  will  confess  to  what  a  woman 
ought  to  confess  ;  but  unless  you  promise  I  will  not 
confess.”  He  said  to  her:  “  I  am  compelled  to  ask 
counsel  as  to  whether  you  must  confess  or  not.  I 
shall  be  obliged  to  go  to  my  own  confessor,  to  con¬ 
sult  the  authorities  of  the  Church.”  He  went. 
They  told  him  that  it  was  not  in  his  province  to  decide 
what  he  would  ask  in  the  confessional ;  that  he  must 
ask  what  the  theologians  and  fathers  of  the  Holy 
Church  had  prescribed.  He  came  back  to  the  con¬ 
fessional  on  another  day.  The  broken-hearted  and 


396  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

beautiful  woman  was  there.  Once  more  she  prof¬ 
fered  her  request ;  and  when  he  said  to  her  :  “I  am 
compelled  by  the  law  of  the  Church  to  ask  you 
those  questions,”  she  fell  fainting  on  the  cushions 
where  she  knelt.  He  rushed  out,  lifted  her  up,  and 
and  carried  her  to  her  home.  The  shock  was  too 
great  for  her.  She  steadily  declined,  and  was  on  her 
dying  bed.  He  went  to  visit  her,  in  order  to  give 
her  the  last  rites  of  the  Church.  It  was  necessary, 
before  she  could  have  extreme  unction,  that  she 
should  be  prepared  for  death  by  confession  ;  and  he 
said  to  her,  ‘  ‘  I  have  no  alternative  ;  I  must  ask  you 
these  questions.”  She  said:  “I  will  not  listen  to 
them.  You  preached  from  the  story  of  the  Prodigal 
Son  ;  it  was  that  which  awakened  me  when  I  was 
living  in  sin  with  the  priest  who  had  ruined  me. 
Now  I  will  not  listen  to  those  questions.  I  will  throw 
myself  into  the  arms  of  my  Saviour,  and  die  as  I 
may.”  The  last  words  she  uttered  were  :  “I  shall 
not  be  lost.”  Her  mother  heard  that  last  word  “lost,” 
and  rushed  into  the  room  to  find  her  daughter  dead  ; 
.and  lived  in  the  belief,  from  which  Father  Chiniquy 
could  not  deliver  her,  because  of  the  secrecy  of  the 
confessional,  that  her  child  had  refused  to  receive 
the  last  rites  of  the  Church,  and  was  lost. 

One  such  fact  as  that  will  damn  forever  auricular 
confession  :  and  when  I  say  to  you  that  facts  like  that 
are  numbered  by  thousands  and  millions ;  that  the 
witnesses  to  them  are  priests  without  number  and 
authorities  uncounted  ;  then  I  give  you  an  idea  of  the 
kind  of  questioning,  of  the  subtle  inquiry,  of  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


397 


degrading  methods  for  probing  the  conscience  and 
searching  the  soul,  that  are  adopted  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  confessional. 

I  believe  there  are  priests  who  break  the  laws 
of  the  Church  ;  that  are  too  manly  to  ask  those  ques¬ 
tions  ;  that  evade  them  and  avoid  them  :  but  if  they 
do,  they  do  it  at  their  peril,  for  the  law  of  the  Church 
is  against  them. 

6.  What  follows  confession  ?  Absolution.  What 
is  that?  Let  me  read  the  words,  or  part  of  them,  in 
which  the  absolution  is  given.  When  the  penitent 
has  confessed,  the  priest  uses  the  following  language  : 
“The  passion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  merits 
of  the  blessed  Mary  always  Virgin,  and  of  all  the 
saints,  and  whatever  good  you  have  done,  and  what¬ 
ever  evil  you  have  suffered,  be  unto  you  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  the  increase  of  grace,  and  the  reward 
of  eternal  life.  Amen.”  This  is  a  part,  an  illustra¬ 
tive  part,  of  the  absolution  which  follows  confession; 
and  if  the  penitent  believes  that  the  priest  has  that 
power,  and  can  believe  with  easy  conscience  that  he 
has  answered  all  the  questions  and  confessed  all  the 
sins,  he  goes  forth  fondly  believing  that  he  is  forgiven 
before  God. 

What  follows  ?  Why  is  it  that  the  priest  stands  up 
in  the  presence  of  his  congregation  with  that  haughty 
air  of  arrogant  pride  ?  Why  is  it  that  the  priest,  as  he 
walks  among  his  flock,  carries  himself  as  if  he  had 
positive  and  absolute  authority  over  their  thoughts 
and  their  consciences  ?  Why  is  it  that  when  you  meet 
him  on  the  street  he  tosses  up  his  head  as  though  he 


398 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


were  a  demigod,  and  hardly  needed  to  tread  on  com¬ 
mon  earth  ?  It  is  because  lie  has  the  secrets  of  his 
flock,  the  personal  and  private  life  of  those  who  have 
•confessed,  and  those  who  have  not  confessed,  whose 
servants  and  families  have  brought  him  the  informa- 
tion.  It  is  because  he  is  virtually  a  spy  in  every 
home,  and  knows  every  heart;  and  knows  that,  if  lie 
wishes  to,  he  can  force  them  by  his  knowledge  to 
yield  to  his  power  and  come  under  his  sway.  No 
wonder  that  he  carries  himself  in  the  pride  of  presump¬ 
tion  and  arrogance  as  a  master ;  no  wonder  that  from 
the  altar  lie  threatens  them  with  cursing  if  they  refuse 
to  obey  his  will.  And  this,  in  my  judgment,  after 
careful  study,  is  the  reason  for  auricular  confession 
in  the  church  of  Rome. 

There  is  another  point  that  I  must  touch  before  I 
part  with  this  theme  to-night,  in  order  that  I  may 
get  sufficiently  along  with  the  subject  to  meet  the 
further  demands  of  another  occasion  like  this.  All 
the  confession  of  the  penitent  is  declared  to  be  abso¬ 
lutely  secret  and  kept  in  the  bosom  of  the  confessor. 
That  is  the  theory  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
Every  word  spoken  to  the  priest  in  the  confes¬ 
sional  is  an  absolute  secret  between  him  and  the 
penitent;  so  that,  I  suppose,  if  a  Roman  Catholic 
priest  in  this  city  had  knowledge  of  any  matter 
whatever,  whether  relating  to  an  individual  or  a 

O 

community,  delivered  to  him  in  the  privacy  of  the 
confessional,  he  would  not  be  compelled  by  any  law 
of  the  State  to  tell  what  he  knows,  even  though  disclos- 
ure  might  lead  to  the  protection  of  virtue  or  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


399 


'overthrow  of  evil  doing.  Let  me  read  you  the  theory 
of  the  church  in  its  own  words  :  “  It  is  not  lawful  to 
reveal  anything  that  is  told  in  confession,  though  it 
be  to  avoid  the  greatest  evil  that  can  happen ;  or  to 
save  a  whole  commonwealth  from  damage,  temporal  or 
spiritual ;  or  to  save  the  lives  of  all  the  kings  in 
Christendom.  The  seal  of  confession  must  be  main¬ 
tained  even  by  falsehood  and  perjury  ;  though  the  loss 
of  a  man’s  life,  or  the  ruin  of  the  State,  be  the  conse¬ 
quence  :  nor  can  the  Supreme  Pontiff  dispense  with 
the  obligation,”  says  Dens,  in  his  Theology.  “  The 
seal  is  an  obligation  of  Divine  right  most  strictly  in 
every  case,  even  where  the  safety  of  a  whole  nation 
is  at  stake,”  says  St.  Liguori.  “  But,  Father !  it 
may  happen  that  my  confessor  will  make  known  my 
sin  to  another.  What  do  you  say?  Know  that  the 
confessor  is  bound  to  suffer  himself  to  be  burnt  alive 
sooner  than  disclose  a  single  venial  sin  confessed  by 
a  penitent.”  Such  is  the  theory  of  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  Church  and  under  the  pledge  of  such  secrecy  all 
confessions  are  made. 

Do  you  believe  that  they  would  be  made  if  the 
penitent  were  aware  that  the  seal  of  the  confession 
was  as  easily  broken  as  the  other  pledges  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  ?  Can  you  imagine  that  man¬ 
hood  and  womanhood  would  make  absolute  surrender 
of  all  the  facts,  the  thoughts,  the  dreams  of  their 
lives  to  another  if  they  supposed  that  that  other 
would  ever  reveal  those  secrets?  And  yet  I  say 
to-night,  on  the  most  unimpeachable  authority,  that 
the  secrets  of  the  confessional,  from  Popes  who  have 


400 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


been  confessors  down,  are  not  only  the  subject  of 
rude  jest  and  free  conversation  and  open  comment ; 
but  they  have  been  the  means  of  working  ruin  to- 
those  who  have  made  confession,  by  their  betrayal 
to  the  civil  and  other  authorities,  even  when  such 
men  have  been  only  the  friends  of  liberty  and  endeav¬ 
oring  to  make  free  the  State.  So  abundant  is  this- 
testimony  that  I  hardly  know  how  to  take  hold  of  it, 
for  the  very  brief  moment  which  I  can  use  to  speak 
upon  it.  I  find  De  Sanctis  saying,  on  page  122r 
exactly  what  Father  O’Connor  said  to  me  in  New 
York  only  a  few  days  ago,  as  follows  :  4  4  But  while  the 
penitent  arraigns  his  faults  with  all  the  fatuity  of  a 
simpleton,  what  is  the  confessor  doing?  Laughing 
at  the  simplicity  of  the  penitent :  and  afterwards,  in 
the  priestly  orgies  that  follow  a  morning  of  great 
confessions,  in  the  hilarity  that  flows  from  winer 
amidst  coarse  explosions  of  laughter,  they  describe 
the  stupid  folly  of  their  penitents,  and  each  priest 
vies  with  his  brother  in  rendering  his  own  penitents- 
more  ridiculous  than  the  rest.  To  such  a  degree  is- 
the  individual  debased  and  degraded  by  confession.” 

Further  I  find  upon  turning  to  a  historical  authority,, 
that  Pius  V.,  Pope  of  Rome,  44  for  the  punishment 
of  certain  offences,  took  advantage  of  the  confessional 
which  ought  to  be  an  inviolable  sanctuary.”  While 
he  was  Cardinal,  the  extraordinary  apparent  piety  of 
his  life  made  a  great  many  flock  to  him  for  confession  ; 
44  but  they  grievously  misreckoned  when  they  con¬ 
fessed  to  a  person  who  adroitly  took  care  to  assure 
himself  of  name  and  surname,  which  he  committed  to 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


401 


his  memorandum  book,  probably  with  the  intention 
of  using  the  information  at  a  fitting  opportunity  ;  as 
in  fact  he  did.  For  no  sooner  was  he  made  Pope, 
than  he  gave  the  Governor  of  Rome  a  list  of  five  per¬ 
sons,  three  men  and  two  women,  supplying  him 
with  the  requisite  particulars  for  finding  them.  He 
took  care,  however,  not  to  mention  that  they  had 
confessed  to  him,  though  he  positively  assured  him 
of  the  grave  offence  that  each  had  committed.  When 
the  Governor  replied  that  justice  was  not  accustomed 
to  imprisonment  on  informations,  without  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  having  witnesses,  Pius  answered  :  When 
you  have  imprisoned  them,  you  can  then,  on  the 
assurance  of  our  word  and  our  conscience,  put 
them  to  the  torture  :  for  they  will  assuredly  confess 
the  offences  of  which  we  inform  you.”  This  was  the 
act  of  Pope  Pius  Y. 

Pope  Sextus  Y.  summoned  confessors,  and  said, 
“That  they  could  make  a  report  to  the  Pontiff,  with¬ 
out  any  danger  attached  to  revealing  a  confession,  he 
giving  them  absolution  for  the  whole.”  That  is,  the 
Pope,  considering  the  fact  that  the  confessors  had 
taken  the  oath  of  secrecy,  absolved  them  from  the 
oath,  and  compelled  them  to  tell  the  secrets  of  the 
confessional  to  him,  in  order  that  he  might  enchain 
the  freedom  of  the  mind,  and  in  order  that  he  might 
destroy  heretics.  Page  after  page  of  testimony  here 
follows.  Citations  from  historians  of  the  highest 
reputation  are  given  to  show  how  numerous  the  in¬ 
stances,  how  unnumbered  the  occasions,  on  which 
the  confidence  of  the  penitent  has  been  betrayed 


402 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


rudely  by  tlie  confessor.  “The  general  opinion  of 
Homan  Catholics  is,  that  priests  do  not  think  of,  nor 
recollect,  the  sins  they  hear  in  confession,  and  much 
less  talk  of  or  relate  them  to  others ;  but,  with  the 
greatest  regret,  I  can  assert  the  contrary,  and  prove 
the  fact.  Some  lay  people  informed  me,  that  they 
heard  several  priests  in  company  relating  some  sins 
of  a  delicate  nature,  of  which  the  said  clergy  acquired 
knowledge  in  the  confessional,  under  the  seal  of  their 
sacred  tribunal,  at  which  they  were  greatly  scandal¬ 
ized,  but  had  not  fortitude  enough  to  reprimand,  or 
sufficient  knowledge  to  report  them  to  their  superiors, 
who  ought  to  suspend  them  perpetually  from  their 
office.  I  have  been  present  in  company  at  different 
times,  when  I  witnessed  priests  revealing  heinous 
sins  sacramentally  made  known  to  them ;  some 
priests  informed,  without  the  least  necessity,  of  some 
enormous  crimes  they  heard  in  confession,  perpe¬ 
trated  between  .  .  .  There  it  stops  very  properly. 
(Rev.  L.  Morissey,  Parish  Priest,  etc.) 

Moreover,  “several  priests  vie  at  times  amongst 
themselves,  to  know  which  of  them  can  relate  and 
inform  each  other  of  the  greatest  and  most  odious 
sins  communicated  to  them  in  the  sacred,  confidential 
tribunal.  They  take  a  secret  pride  in  having  it  in  their 
power  to  make  such  communications.”  A  bishop 
informed  me  of  the  sins  of  one  of  his  penitents,  told 
him  in  confession,  who  was  a  respectable  lady,  and  an 
acquaintance  of  mine.  He  even  mentioned  her  name. 
Some  coolness  existed  between  a  certain  priest  and 
myself,  to  whom  I  was  in  the  habit  of  going  to  con- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


403 


fession  previous  to  our  misunderstanding.  In  the 
course  of  some  time  after,  lie  revealed  my  sacra¬ 
mental  confession  to  others  in  my  presence.”  So  he 
goes  on  to  say:  “I  shall  only  say,  that  this  sacra¬ 
ment  was  considered  before  now  as  the  pillar  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  through  which  grace  was 
conveyed  and  salvation  obtained  ;  but  now  it  is  con¬ 
sidered  by  many  priests  and  prelates  as  the  pillar  of 
the  Holy  Inquisition,  the  source  of  genuine  informa¬ 
tion  for  sanguinary  purposes,  the  security  of  abso¬ 
lute  and  universal  influence,  and  the  extermination  of 
heretical  pravity.”  (Ibid.) 

The  following  are  the  words  of  one  who  was  him¬ 
self  a  Popish  priest  for  some  time.  Referring  to 
another  priest,  whom  he  occasionally  met,  he  says  : 
“All  our  conversation  ran  upon  the  stories  he  heard 
in  confession.  But  he  is  not  the  only  person  who  is 
free  in  what  he  has  heard,  for  it  is  the  ordinary  dis¬ 
course  of  the  priests,  when  they  meet,  to  inform  one 
another  of  what  they  have  heard  in  confession.  This 
I  can  assert,  because  I  was  often  present  at  such  con¬ 
ferences,  where  the  conversation  was  so  indecent 
that  even  an  honest  pagan  would  have  blushed.”  (See 
Elliot,  “Delineation  of  Roman  Catholicism.”) 

“Every  day  they  [the  Dominican  monks]  came, 
and  talked  most  licentiously,  relating  things  that 
had  happened  at  the  Holy  Offiee  at  Perugia,  confes¬ 
sions  they  had  heard,  etc.”  This  is  from  the  bishop 
of  Pistoia,  Scipio  de  Ricci,  whose  memoirs  were  so 
scandalous  that  the  Italian  Government  caused  them 
to  be  printed  in  order  to  give  a  reason  why  the  Gov- 


404 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


eminent  had  seized  the  property  of  the  church,  and 
turned  out  the  monks  and  nuns  from  the  houses 
which  they  had  disgraced.  My  friends,  only  the 
lack  of  time  is  a  bar  to  my  reading  to  you  for  half  an 
hour  the  most  astonishing  and  undeniable  testimony 
on  this  subject.  We  have  here  an  Italian  patriot 
telling  us  how  the  names  of  the  patriots  were  dis¬ 
covered  through  the  confessional ;  how  the  priests 
delivered  them  up  to  the  secular  power  and  the  In¬ 
quisition  ;  and  how,  as  a  result,  these  men  were  im¬ 
prisoned  and  exiled. 

I  will  not  take  time  to  read  you  in  his  words  the 
fact  that  De  Sanctis  himself,  when  the  Inquisition  was 
broken  up  and  free  Italy  resumed  control  of  the 
Roman  States,  found  in  the  library  and  archives  of 
the  Inquisition  volumes  like  ledgers,  in  which  were 
the  names  of  the  persons,  whose  confessions  were  on 
adjacent  pages,  and  there  was  the  secret  history 
of  their  lives,  written  out  for  the  use  of  the  Papal 
power,  in  order  to  the  suppression  of  any  revolt 
against  its  authority.  I  have  not  time  to  tell  you 
how  often  the  confession  is  betrayed  ;  how  small  a 
tax  is  necessary  in  order  that  the  priest  may  be 
excused  for  it :  nor  have  I  time  to  tell  you  how  the 
priests  bring  their  influence  to  bear  upon  the  penitents 
to  get  permission  to  reveal  what  they  are  determined 
to  reveal,  whether  the  penitent  shall  give  his  consent 
or  not :  for  if  the  penitent  refuses  to  give  his  consent 
to  the  revelations  of  the  confession,  then  the  priest 
refuses  absolution,  and  the  poor  person  stands,  as  he 
supposes,  in  danger  of  immediate  and  final  damnation. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


405 


What  does  the  confessional  do  ?  These  are  proofs 
of  the  manner  in  which  its  secresy  is  violated.  Are 
there  Roman  Catholics  in  this  house  to-night?  are 
there  intelligent  people  here,  members  of  that  Church  ; 
who,  unaware  of  the  manner  in  which  their  confidence 
is  betrayed,  have  believed  that  this  priestly  absolu¬ 
tion  was  simply  the  purpose  of  a  good  man  to  deliver 
them  from  their  sins?  My  friends,  you  are  greatly 
mistaken.  The  purpose  of  auricular  confession  is  so 
to  enchain  you  that  you  shall  not  dare  to  break  away 
from  the  power  of  the  priest ;  and  that  you  shall  not 
dare  to  think  for  yourselves  in  matters  of  religion  or 
anything  else.  It  induces  immorality  and  crime. 
It  degrades  the  priests  and  the  penitents.  It  ruins  the 
State  and  assaults  liberty.  It  plunders  families  by 
means  of  the  last  and  dying  confession  of  their  mem¬ 
bers  ;  so  that  their  wills  are  made  in  favor  of  the 
church.  It  renders  impossible  religious  progress.  It 
blights  domestic  happiness.  It  enchains  all  its  devo¬ 
tees;  and  the  truth  of  this  statement  I  shall  vindi¬ 
cate  by  ample  proof  hereafter. 

I  turn  from  a  picture  so  revolting  —  from  a  scene 
so  sad  —  remembering  that  multitudes  of  our  fellow- 
men  are  in  this  bondage  :  I  turn  to  one  of  many 
radiant  lines  of  light  from  the  Scriptures  of  Divine 
Truth,  which  I  pray  you  to  carry  with  you  in  your 
recollections  of  this  hour.  “  Two  men  went  up  into 
the  temple  to  pray;  the  one  a  Pharisee,  and  the 
other  a  publican.  The  Pharisee  stood  and  prayed 
thus  with  himself :  God,  I  thank  Thee  that  I  am  not 
as  other  men  are,  extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers,  or 


406 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


even  as  this  publican  :  I  fast  twice  in  the  week,  I 
give  tithes  of  all  that  I  possess.  And  the  publican, 
standing  afar  off,  would  not  lift  up  so  much  as  his  eyes 
unto  heaven,  but  smote  upon  his  breast,  saying, 
“God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner.”  And  what  said 
the  Great  High  Priest  of  time  and  eternity  concerning 
this  confession?  “  I  tell  you,  this  man  went  down 
to  his  house  justified,  rather  than  the  other  :  for  every 
one  that  exalteth  himself  shall  be  abased ;  and  he 
that  humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.”  O  friends  ! 
will  not  you  preach  this  doctrine  to  our  brethren  of 
the  Romish  Church  ?  Will  you  not  carry  this  Bible 
truth  to  those  who  sit  in  the  shadow  of  religious 
tyranny?  Will  you  not  tell  them  out  of  your  own 
heart,  from  your  own  experience,  that  the  man, 
however  sinful,  wherever  he  may  be,  who,  in  the 
presence  of  God,  smites  upon  his  breast  in  humble 
penitence,  and  confesses  sin,  praying  “  God  be  mer¬ 
ciful  to  me  a  sinner,”  that  man,  by  word  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  a  justified  man.  Oh  that  the  day  may 
come  when  the  slaves  of  Rome  shall  have  this  justifi¬ 
cation  through  Jesus  Christ ;  and  when  you  and  I, 
and  all  of  us,  can  tell  them,  that  we,  for  our  part, 
know  what  it  is  by  a  blessed  experience.  Amen. 


Sermon  HIT. 


THE  ROMISH  CONFESSIONAL,  WHAT  IT  IS, 

AND  WHAT  IT  DOES. 

The  Romish  Confessional  cannot  have  the  sanction 

of  God. 

We  find  the  words  of  our  text  to-night,  as  we  pur¬ 
sue  the  subject  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Confessional, 
in  the  Second  Epistle  General  of  Peter,  the  second 
chapter,  and  the  nineteenth  verse:  “While  they 
promise  them  liberty,  they  themselves  are  the 
servants  of  corruption  ;  for  of  whom  a  man  is  over¬ 
come,  of  the  same  is  he  brought  in  bondage.”  The 
eighteenth  verse  reads:  “For  when  they  speak 
great  swelling  words  of  vanity,  they  allure  through 
the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  through  much  wantonness, 
those  that  were  clean  escaped  from  them  who  live 
in  error.” 

Every  person  in  this  congregation,  I  hope,  at  some 
time  has  thanked  God  for  the  story  of  the  Prodigal 
Son.  Of  all  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  good 
Shepherd  of  the  sheep,  who  sought  after  us  to  save  us, 
there  are  none  more  tender  than  these.  Many  of 
this  congregation  know,  by  personal  experience,  the 
history  of  a  youth  who  wasted  his  substance  with 


408 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


riotous  living,  and  awoke  to  his  shame  in  a  strange 
land.  Kneeling  on  the  ground,  with  no  great  cathe¬ 
dral  roof  above  him,  with  only  the  swine  for  com¬ 
pany,  and  God  over  all,  this  hoy  turns  his  heart  and 
thought  and  prayer  toward  home,  and  says  :  “  I  will 
arise,  and  go  to  my  father;  and  will  say  unto  him, 
Father,  I  have  sinned  against  heaven,  and  in  thy 
sight,  and  am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son.” 
The  father’s  heart  never  had  ceased  to  long  for  his 
son,  and  ere  the  penitent  reached  the  paternal  man¬ 
sion,  the  swift  feet  of  love  had  met  him,  and  fallen 
on  his  neck,  and  kissed  him  ;  had  given  orders  that 
the  best  robe  should  be  put  upon  him,  the  shoes  and 
the  ring,  and  that  the  feast  should  be  prepared,  and 
had  directed  that  merriment  and  gladness  should 
reign  around  ;  “  for  this  my  son  was  dead,  and  is  alive 
again  ;  he  was  lost,  and  is  found.” 

If  the  Romish  confessional  were  necessarv  in  order 

%> 

that  men  should  get  back  to  their  Father,  this  story 
would  never  have  been  written.  If  there  need  be 
the  interposition  of  a  priest,  who  should  hear  in  his 
ear  all  the  sin  and  sorrow  of  a  wandering  man,  this 
story  of  the  Prodigal  Son  would  never  have  been 
spoken  ;  and  perhaps  the  good  God  gave  us  this  story 
in  order  that,  at  this  time,  in  the  nineteenth  century 
of  Christianity,  we  might  lift  up  our  voices  against 
the  claims  of  ecclesiastical  power,  and  the  hindrances 
which  priests  put  in  the  way  of  those  who  will  seek 
their  God,  and  say  :  “As  came  the  prodigal  to  his 
father;  so,  my  brothers,  let  us  come  to  God.” 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


409 


The  Bible  is  self-consistent  in  every  part ;  and  there¬ 
fore  the  theory  of  confession  and  pardon  which  you 
find  in  one  place  must  be  congruous  and  harmonious 
with  that  you  find  in  all  places.  The  prodigal  came, 
exactly  as  we  were  saying  on  last  Sunday  night  that 
they  come  Avho  pray  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  say, 
“Forgive  us  our  trespasses  as  we  forgive.”  The 
prodigal  came  precisely  as  the  publican  smote  upon 
his  breast,  and  prayed,  “  God  be  merciful  to  me  a 
sinner.”  Nor  can  there  be  any  contradiction  from 
Holy  Scripture  of  this  method  of  confession,  and  of 
its  acceptability  to  God  against  whom  we  have  sinned. 
This  Bible  theory  of  confession  is  taught  by  all 
Protestant  Christians, —  that  I  may  come  to  God 
anywhere,  at  any  time,  without  any  interposition 
but  that  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  may  have  as  definite 
assurance  that  God  the  Father  receives  me  as  that 
prodigal  had  of  parental  goodness,  who  felt  the 
arms  of  love  about  his  neck,  and  the  pressure  of 
love  against  his  bosom,  while  the  old  man  rejoic¬ 
ingly  said:  “This  my  son  was  dead,  and  is  alive 
again;  he  was  lost,  and  is  found.” 

But  there  are  two  passages  of  Scripture  which,  as 
used  by  Romanists,  are  in  diametrical  contradiction 
to  this  form  of  true  confession.  On  those  two, 
more  than  on  any  other,  they  build  up  the  alleged 
Scriptural  authority  for  auricular  confession.  The 
first  of  those  passages  is  in  the  16th  chapter  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew,  where  it  is  said  by 
our  Lord,  addressing  Peter  :  “Twill  give  unto  thee 

7  O  O 

the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever 


410 


Romanism  and  the  Republic - 


thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  In  heaven 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be^ 
loosed  in  heaven.’’  The  Roman  Catholics  who  are 
in  this  congregation,  know  that  from  this  statement 
the  deduction  in  all  the  Roman  Catholic  books  is* 
this  :  The  power  of  the  keys  given  to  Peter,  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing  sins,  is  now  solely  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  rights  that  Peter 
had  by  this  promise  were  handed  down  to  Popes- 
following  him,  and  bishops  and  priests,  so  that  only 
by  them  can  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be  opened  or 
closed,  and  only  by  them  can  the  souls  of  men  be 
bound  or  released. 

But  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  itself  says  that 
this  promise  was  fulfilled  as  recorded  in  the  20th 
chapter  of  St.  John,  where,  in  the  19tli  verse,  it  is 
said  that  our  Lord  met  his  disciples,  while  they  were 
assembled  secretly  for  fear  of  the  Jews ;  that  he 
breathed  on  them,  and  said  :  “  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost :  whosoever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted 
unto  them;  and  whosoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained.”  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  De  Sanctis 
says,  tells  us  that  this  is  the  fulfillment  of  the  prom¬ 
ise.  Here  you  will  observe  that  at  the  fulfillment  of 
this  promise  all  the  disciples  were  present ;  not  Peter 
only,  not  the  apostles  only,  but  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty  men  and  women  who  constituted  the  infant 
church;  and  that  the  power  of  “binding  and  loos¬ 
ing,”  to  use  the  Roman  Catholic  phrase,  was  given  to- 
every  one  of  them,  to  all  the  Christians  present. 
There  can  be  no  controversy  whatever  as  to  this  fiict, 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


411 


if  people  are  disposed  to  be  fair.  The  assumption > 
then,  that  Peter  had  this  power  alone,  is  plainly  con¬ 
tradicted  by  the  fact  that  our  Lord  gave  it  to  all  his 
apostles,  and  to  all  his  disciples  equally  wfith  the  apos¬ 
tles  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  power  of  opening  heaven  is 
in  the  Church  as  such,  and  as  a  whole  ;  and  the  power 
of  binding  and  loosing,  as  it  is  called,  is  equally  with 
every  Christian,  as  with  every  other  Christian. 

What,  then,  is  that  power?  What  is  the  key? 
What  is  the  binding,  and  what  the  loosing?  Simply 
and  only, — and  it  is  as  plain  as  day  to  any  who  do  not 
want  to  corrupt  the  Word  of  God, —  that  the  Gospel 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  given  to  all  men  if 
they  will  receive  it,  looses  from  sin  those  who  take 
it,  and  binds  with  a  deeper  condemnation  those  who 
reject  it.  This  is  the  condensed  and  concentrated 
statement.  There  is  no  other  key,  excepting  the 
Gospel,  for  heaven,  and  deliverance  from  sin. 

There  is  no  other  unloosing,  except  the  unloosing 
which  you  can  give,  as  well  as  I,  if  you  have  this  Gos¬ 
pel  to  teach  and  preach.  There  is  no  binding,  except 
the  binding  that  you  can  give  as  well  as  the  Pope,  if 
you  choose  so  to  do,  laying  on  men’s  consciences  the 
Word  of  God,  and  holding  them  to  it  as  the  only 
way  of  salvation.  And  yet  upon  a  childish  perver¬ 
sion,  superstitious,  subtle,  selfish,  of  these  texts  of 
Holy  Scripture,  has  been  built  up  the  most  colossal 
system  of  presumption,  immorality  and  tyranny  that 
the  world  ever  saw.  I  say  this  deliberately,  and  I 
shall  prove  every  word  of  it. 


412 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


By  the  misuse  of  these  texts,  Rome  has  locked 
up  men  in  the  prison-house  of  superstition;  has 
bound  the  human  mind  with  chains  of  darkness  ;  has 
shackled  states  and  imprisoned  free  thought ;  has 
shed  the  blood  of  men  whose  lives  were  freely  given 
for  conscience  and  for  principle.  It  has  loosed  no 
one  ;  it  has  chained  the  world.  The  only  govern¬ 
ments  that  Rome  has  ever  favored  were  tyrannies. 
H  as  the  Pope  ever  pronounced  his  benediction  on 
republics  ?  Has  he  ever  espoused  the  cause  of  the 
people  against  their  oppressors?  Why,  the  other 
day,  this  old  man  of  the  Vatican,  supposing  the  peo¬ 
ple  were  all  as  blinded  as  Romanists  would  make 
them,  began  to  prate  about  the  slave  trade  ;  and  the 
Worcester  papers,  that  dare  not  say  that  we  are  here 
on  Sunday  night,  said  the  Pope  was  moving  in  the 
direction  of  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade.  How 
long  ago  was  it  that  Protestant  Christians,  through 
their  legislatures,  denounced  the  slave  trade?  How 
many  }rears  have  the  guns  of  our  navies  on  the  coast 
of  Africa  delivered  the  slave  and  smitten  his  captor 
and  kidnapper  ?  And  that  old  man  has  just  woke  up 
and  asked  these  powers  to  combine  against  the  slave 
trade  !  Father  Leo,  if  you  are  really  against  the 
onslavement  of  mankind,  get  down  on  your  knees 
like  a  sinner,  as  you  are  ;  ask  Almighty  God  to  for¬ 
give  your  presumption,  and  let  go  free  the  millions 
of  Rome  who  are  the  slaves  of  superstition  ! 

This  utterly  false  and  wicked  idea  of  priestly  con¬ 
fession  puts  bonds  upon  men  and  women,  soul  and 
body  ;  binds  their  spirit,  conscience  and  mind ; 


Romanism  and  the  Republic, 


413 


grasps  their  family,  their  social  system,  and  their 
business  ;  seizes  their  property,  and  pursues  them 
into  their  graves  with  rapacious  demands  for  money  ; 
robs  them  in  such  a  way  as  monopolies  never  robbed 
the  people  ;  or  rather,  as  a  monopoly,  would  make  it 
appear  that  they  monopolize  Heaven’s  gifts  :  assume 
that  heaven  is  Rome’s  gift,  while  hell  is  its  standing 
threat! 

Now,  instead  of  taking  away  sin,  I  am  prepared  to 
show,  God  being  my  helper,  and  the  devil  and  the 
Pope  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  that  instead 
of  diminishing  sin,  which  all  true  confession  ought  to 

O'  o 

do,  there  is  probably  no  force  operative  in  the  world 
that  has  created  more  crime  and  more  sin  than  the 
Romish  confessional.  I  use  the  language  of  one  of 
the  most  intelligent  ex-priests  in  the  world,  who 
gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  social  vice,  at  the 
name  of  which  we  shudder  and  grow  sick  at  heart, 
has  not  created,  in  its  common  form,  more  immor¬ 
ality,  or  dragged  down  more  people,  than  the 
Roman  Catholic  confessional.  It  is  an  author  of  sin, 
instead  of  a  saviour  from  sin.  It  creates  sin,  instead 
of  releasing  men  from  sin. 

I  propose  to  show  to-night,  if  I  have  time,  first, 
that  it  is  a  system  of  falsehood  and  hypocrisy,  pro¬ 
ducing  crime  and  sin  ;  second,  that  it  is  a  system  of 
spies,  of  espionage  upon  homes,  persons  and  govern¬ 
ments  ;  third,  that  it  is  against  the  peace,  purity  and 
welfare  of  the  family  :  fourth,  that  it  is  the  oppo¬ 
nent  of  liberty  in  the  State  ;  fifth,  that  it  is  the  foe  of 
pure  religion  and  of  religious  progress. 


414  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

1.  I  say,  first,  it  is  a  system  of  falsehood  and 
hypocrisy,  producing  crime  and  sin. 

I  have  little  less  confidence  in  reading  from  De 
Sanctis,  who  will  be  my  chief  authority  to-night,  than 
I  should  have  on  matters  of  fact  in  reading  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures  ;  for  while  I  believe  them  to  be  true, 
most  amply  vindicated,  I  believe  the  same  of  this 
distinguished  man  who  was  emancipated  from  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  When  I  say  that  the  con- 
fessional  is  a  system  of  falsehood  and  hypocrisy,  I 
mean  to  say,  that  I  do  not  think  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  priesthood  give  any  evidence  of  believing  that 
they  can  free  men  from  sin  by  their  absolution,  and 
that  they  regard  the  whole  thing  with  a  mixture  of 
superstition  and  contempt. 

De  Sanctis  says,  after  speaking  of  the  character  of 
the  confessors:  “While  the  penitent  arraigns  his 
faults  with  all  the  fatuity  of  a  simpleton,  what  is  the 
-confessor  doing?  Laughing  at  the  simplicity  of  the 
penitent ;  and  afterwards  in  the  priestly  orgies  that 
follow  a  morning  of  great  confessions,  in  the  hilarity 
that  flows  from  wine,  amidst  coarse  explosions  of 
laughter,  t^ey  describe  to  each  other  the  stupid  folly 
of  their  penitents ;  and  each  priest  vies  with  his 
brother  in  rendering  his  own  penitents  more  ridicu¬ 
lous  than  the  rest.  To  such  a  degree  is  the  indi¬ 
vidual  debased  and  degraded  by  confession.” 

The  ex-priests  with  whom  I  have  talked,  say  to 
me,  that  there  are  honest  priests,  and  a  good  many  of 
them,  who  feel  thoroughly  degraded  by  having  to  sit 
in  the  confessional  and  take  the  confessions  that  are 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


415 


given  them.  Some  of  them  have  said  that  the  ear  of 
the  priest  is  the  sewer  into  which  flows  all  manner  of 
evil  and  vicious  conversation ;  and  that  while  the 
priests  sometimes  in  public,  because  of  their  fear  of 
the  Church,  praise  and  laud  the  confessional,  those 
same  priests  in  private  bitterly  lament  their  own 
degradation,  in  that  they  are  compelled  to  take  the 
•confessions  of  those  that  come  to  them.  It  generates 
hypocrisy  and  recklessness  in  the  penitent.  Of  that 
there  can  be  no  question.  Listen  to  De  Sanctis,  who 
was  so  many  years  a  confessor  in  Rome.  He  says, 

■  on  the  108th  and  109th  pages  of  his  book  : 

“The  facilities  for  obtaining  pardon  of  sins,  by 
; relating  them  to  a  priest,  too  often  a  boon  companion 
in  the  excesses  of  the  penitent,  pave  the  way  to  the 
commission  of  new  sins.  ‘  Sin  confessed,  sin  for¬ 
given  ‘  Confessing  a  hundred  sins  is  as  good  as 
confessing  a  hundred  and  ten,’  are  popular  proverbs 
in  Italy.  But  I  take  for  an  example  Rome,  the  city 
which  boasts  to  be  the  centre  of  religion,  the  seat  of 
the  pretended  A  icar  of  Jesus  Christ ;  the  city  where, 
more  than  in  any  other  place,  confession  is  largely 
practised.  I  likewise  take  Rome  as  an  example, 
because  of  that  city  I  speak  with  certain  knowledge. 
That  city  was  my  native  place,  and  I  discharged  in  it 
for  fifteen  years  the  ministry  of  hearing  confession  :  I 
fulfilled  in  eight  years  the  duty  of  a  parish  priest ; 
these  facts  give  me  sufficient  knowledge  to  speak 
with  certainty. 

“  Rome  is  the  city  which  surpasses  all  the  other 
cities  of  Italy  in  immorality.  But  perhaps  the  blame 


416 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


ought  to  be  imputed  to  the  Roman  people  ?  No. 
The  Roman  people,  noble  and  generous  as  its  fore¬ 
fathers,  would  be  the  people  of  the  greatest  virtue, 
a  heroic  people,  if  it  were  trained  to  virtue,  if  it 
were  educated  in  the  Gospel.  But  all  the  fine  quali¬ 
ties  of  that  people  are  stifled  by  the  teaching  of  its 
Church,  and  the  people  are  brutalized  in  guilt. 
Blasphemy  against  God  is  the  predominant  vice  of 
the  Roman  ;  but  the  blasphemer  confesses,  departs 
absolved,  and  is  no  sooner  out  of  the  church  than  he 
begins  to  blaspheme  anew.  Drunkenness,  murder,, 
theft,  fraud,  adultery,  are  crimes  incessantly 
repeated  ;  but  whoever  commits  them,  confesses,  and 
believes  himself  absolved;  and  immorality  is  not 
only  arrested,  but,  by  the  facility  ot‘  pardon  at  the 
cost  of  a  few  prayers,  is  committed  again  without 
scruple.  There  is  no  society  that  had  not  annually, 
(at  least  up  to  1848)  its  spiritual  exercises  to  pre¬ 
pare  for  confession  ;  the  number  of  individuals  who 

did  not  confess  at  Easter  in  so  vast  a  citv  never 

«/ 

amounted  to  fifty ;  yet,  with  so  many  confessions, 
immorality  was  ever  on  the  increase,  and  vice  ever 
triumphant ;  and  the  increase  was  greatest  (I  speak 
of  notorious  facts)  in  those  who  were  most  regular 
in  confession  ;  and  to  them  is  Rome  indebted  for  the 
current  proverb,  ‘  Better  an  unbeliever  than  a 
bigot.”’ 

c 

He  then  goes  on  to  give  criminal  statistics  of  the 
most  startling  character.  For  instance,  he  says : 
“  Let  statistics  be  appealed  to,  and  it  will  be  seen 
that  if  Catholic  criminals  are  in  ratio  to  the  popu- 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


417 


lation  as  ten  to  a  thousand,  for  instance  ;  Protestant 
criminals  are  only  one  to  a  thousand.  Let  Protes¬ 
tant  England  be  attentively  regarded,  and  compared 
with  Catholic  Ireland ;  the  Protestant  cantons  of 
Switzerland  with  the  Swiss  cantons;  the  country  of 
the  Waldensians  with  the  rest  of  Piedmont.  Let 
statistics  be  consulted,  and  the  difference  will  be  seen 
at  a  alance  between  Protestants  who  do  not  confess 

V _ 

to  a  priest,  and  Catholics  who  do  ;  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  latter  are  much  more  criminal  and  immoral 
than  the  former.”  The  man  who  had  heard  confes¬ 
sions  for  so  many  years  ought  to  know  what  the 
effect  of  the  confessional  is.  When  I  find  that  the 
Protestant  Irishman  is  so  noble  a  specimen  of  Chris¬ 
tian  morality,  I  want  to  know  why  it  is  that  men  of 
the  same  blood  are  furnishing  so  vast  a  proportion 
of  our  criminals.  We  have  not  found  out  the  reason 
yet;  unless  we  trace  it  to  the  Romish  Church  as  a 
cause  and  a  source.  Please  to  notice  :  “  Those  most 
regular  in  the  confessional,”  says  De  Sanctis,  “  are 
the  most  notoriously  irregular  in  their  lives.” 

We  have  supposed,  in  our  simplicity,  resulting 
from  our  lack  of  attention  to  this  matter,  that  the  con¬ 
fessional  caused  a  irood  deal  of  restitution  to  be  made 
in  cases  of  theft,  robbery  and  the  like.  What  does 
De  Sanctis  say  of  that,  on  pages  126-27?  I  have 
never  believed  that  the  confessional  favored  honesty  ; 
but  now  I  know  it  does  not.  De  Sanctis  says:  “The 
much-vaunted  restitution!  are,  after  all,  mere  dust 
thrown  in  the  eyes  of  simpletons”  (rub  the  dust  out 
of  your  eyes  my  friends,)  “  that  they  may  not  observe 


418 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


the  peculations  of  the  confessor :  so  rare  are  they, 
so  insignificant,  that  they  do  not  restore  even  a 
thousandth  part  of  the  plunder.  To  these  insigni¬ 
ficant  restitutions,  which  yet  would  be  an  advantage 
to  society,  is  to  be  contrasted  the  encouragement 
given  to  theft,  as  to  eveiy  other  crime,  by  the  facil¬ 
ity  of  obtaining  pardon  ;  and  the  absolutions  given  to 
robbers,  usurers,  murderers,  without  their  having 
made  any  restitution  whatever.  They  repair  to  the 
confessor,  present  him  with  a  goodly  offering  for  a 
mass ;  or,  if  they  are  robbers  of  celebrity,  men 
abounding  in  wealth,  they  found  a  chapelry,  a  bene¬ 
fice,  or  something  of  the  kind  ;  and  who  is  the  con¬ 
fessor,  to  resist  the  force  of  such  powerful  arguments, 
and  send  away  the  penitent  without  absolution?  At 
Rome,  the  public  robbers  who  are  in  the  galleys  con¬ 
fess,  all  of  them,  once  a  year,  and  even  oftener  ;  but 
never  from  those  places  does  there  come  a  restitution, 
though  it  is  known  that  the  objects  stolen  are 
secreted  ;  yet  they  confess  and  communicate.”  Now 
further:  “  At  Rome,  for  instance,  every  one  knows 
that  Pius  VII.  granted  to  all  who  hear  confessions  in 
the  Holy  house  Ponterotto,  the  privilege  of  absolving 
from  the  obligation  of  restitution  all  who  have 
defrauded  the  Rev.  Apostolic  Chamber,  or  the  Gov¬ 
ernment ;  and  all  defraud,  and  run  there  to  receive 
absolution.  But  this  is  not  enough.  Leo  X.,  in  his 
Bull  beginning  with  ‘  Postquam  ad  Apostulatus,’ 
gives  confessors  the  privilege  not  only  of  absolving 

o  1  O  *j  o 

robbers,  but  of  permitting  them  to  retain,  in  all  good 
conscience,  the  fruits  of  their  usury,  robberies,  thefts, 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


419 


etc.,  on  condition  that  part  of  the  goods  be  given  to 
the  Church.”  That  is  one  way  to  get  off,  is  it  not? 
The  robber,  the  murderer,  seizes  his  victim,  his 
plunder,  and  according  to  the  Apostolic  Bull  of  an 
infallible  church,  by  paying  a  portion  of  this  to  the 
infallible  church,  has  the  power  of  binding  and  loos¬ 
ing  applied  to  him,  and  the  key  turns  which  opens 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  he  goes  in,  red-handed 
and  black-hearted  !  I  myself  have  seen  in  the  chapels 
of  Rome,  on  the  altars  of  their  churches,  in  more 
than  one  instance,  the  daggers  of  assassins  which  had 
been  placed  there  as  an  offering  to  the  saint  who  had 
helped  them,  as  they  supposed,  in  the  murder  of 
their  enemies. 

2.  It  is  a  spy  system  in  the  interests  of  tyranny. 
You  remember  the  martyrdom  of  Bishop  Latimer, 
who  is  one  of  the  uncanonized  saints  of  the  English 
church,  whom  Romanists  burned  at  the  stake.  Years 
ago  in  England,  he  said,  in  his  sermon  on  Matthew 
viii. ,  concerning  the  confessional:  “And  so  they 
came  to  all  the  secrets  that  were  in  men’s  hearts,  so 
that  emperor  nor  king  could  say  nor  do,  nor  think 
anything  in  his  heart,  but  they  knew  it,  and  so  applied 
all  the  purposes  and  intents  of  princes  to  their  own 
commodities.  And  this  was  the  fruit  of  their  auric¬ 
ular  confession.”  That  was  said  some  centuries  ago 
in  old  England.  They  knew  it  then,  and  it  has  been 
known  ever  since.  It  is  a  system  by  which  the  priest 
who  desires  it,  if  you  have  a  servant  in  your  house 
who  goes  to  the  confessional,  knows  what  you  think 
and  say  and  do  ;  as  on  the  132d  page  of  this  book  of 


420 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


De  Sanctis:  “Confession  in  relation  to  society  may 
be  defined  as  an  universal  spydom,  organized  and 
complete.  Confessors  are  not  content  to  know  the 
sins  of  those  who  confess  ;  but  they  must  learn  the 
regulation  and  management  of  the  family  :  and  when  an 
ingenious  youth  or  an  innocent  maiden  comes  under  the 
fangs  of  a  knavish  confessor  (and  which  of  them  is 
not  a  knave?)  they  do  not  escape  till  they  have  first 
revealed  the  secrets  of  the  family  circle — without, 
however,  being  aware  of  it,”  (and  then  follows  a 
passage  which  I  cannot  read  to  you). 

Now  the  testimony  as  to  their  espionage,  and  of 
their  reports  to  head-quarters  concerning  such  action 
everywhere  transpiring,  is  so  voluminous  that  it 
is  almost  impossible  to  take  out  from  it  a  little 
abstract  for  this  occasion.  I  read  :  “They  were  fur- 
ther  enjoined,”  (that  is,  the  Jesuits),  “in  all  cases  of 
doubt  or  difficulty,  in  which  a  sovereign  sought 
their  counsel,  to  refer  the  matter  to  their  superior 
and  obtain  his  decision,  before  giving  their  own  reply  : 
in  reference  to  which  it  must  be  mentioned,  as  an 
essential  part  of  the  system,  that  the  confessions  of 
'  sovereign  princes  were  at  all  times  communicated  to 
the  General  of  the  Order.”  Further  it  is  stated,  that 
“  By  means  of  the  religious  Orders  submitted  to  its 
power  and  discipline,  the  Holy  See  was  enabled  to 
penetrate  into  the  secrets  of  the  laws,  and  the  feelings 
of  the  people.  The  confessional  of  every  Catholic 
monarch  found  its  corresponding  echo  beneath  the 
dome  of  the  Vatican.”  Further,  we  are  told,  that  the 
messenger  between  the  Council  of  Trent  and  the 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


421 


Jesuits  of  Paris,  whose  name  is  given,  had  for  part  of 
the  instruction  given  him  this:  “To  take  notice  of 
the  confessions  of  the  people  of  France,  and  especially 
of  the  nobles  and  gentry,  and  in  case  they  suspect 
anything  detrimental  to  the  Holy  See  of  Rome,  then 
to  confer  with  three  or  more  confessors  of  the  sus¬ 
picion,  and  so  take  memoranda  to  be  asked  of  the 
party  so  suspected  the  next  time.”  And  so  the 
history  goes  on  multiplying  the  proofs.  We  are 
told  that  even  the  boys  in  certain  schools  in  Rome 
are  encouraged  to  write  out  as  a  confession,  at  a  cer- 
tain  time  in  the  month,  all  that  they  are,  or  think,  or 
feel,  or  dream  ;  and  this  is  laid  with  ceremony  on  an 
altar  provided  for  the  purpose  ;  remains  in  the  hands 
of  the  confessors  for  a  month  ;  is  copied  into  books  ; 
and  so  the  secrets  of  ingenuous  youth,  and  the  house¬ 
holds  to  which  they  belong,  become  the  property  of 
the  most  unscrupulous  spies  of  the  most  unscrupulous 
power  that  the  world  ever  knew.  There  is  authority 
given  for  breaking  the  seal  of  the  confessional,  as  I  told 
you  last  Sunday  night,  and  as  I  need  not  now  repeat. 
I  presume  that  in  three-quarters  of  the  homes  where 
Roman  Catholic  servants  are  employed  who  go  to  the 
confessional,  your  business,  your  words,  your  atti¬ 
tudes,  your  secrets,  as  far  as  known,  have  become  the 
property  of  the  priests.  What  do  they  do  with  them  ? 
They  lay  the  astutest  and  profoundest  plans  that  they 
can  possibly  contrive  for  gaining  such  knowledge  and 
influence  as  will  be  to  the  advantage  of  the  Church, 
without  reference  to  the  advantage  of  anybody  else ; 
for  the  confessions  that  are  recorded  in  the  confes- 


422 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


sionals  of  Rome  are  always  in  the  interests  of  oppres¬ 
sion  and  tyranny. 

3.  But  I  must  hasten  to  show,  that  against  the 
peace,  the  purity  and  welfare  of  the  family,  the  con¬ 
fessional  continually  conspires.  Do  you  suppose 
that  Roman  Catholic  men  know  the  questions  that 
are  asked  their  wTives  and  daughters  in  the  confes¬ 
sional?  I  do  not  believe  they  do.  Father  Chiniquy 
says,  they  do  not.  He  says,  in  a  startling  passage  : 
“  But  the  betrayed  husband  knows  nothing  of  the 
dark  mysteries  of  auricular  confession ;  the  duped 
father  suspects  nothing :  a  cloud  from  hell  has  ob¬ 
scured  the  intelligence  of  them  both,  and  made  them 
blind.  On  the  contrary,  husbands  and  fathers, 
friends  and  relations,  feel  edified  and  pleased  with 
the  spectacle  of  the  ‘piety’  of  their  wives  and  daugh¬ 
ters.”  (I  have  to  read  very  carefully  here.)  “  The 
wife  is  brought  under  apostolic  control,  and  so  all  the 
family.  In  the  Church  of  Rome,  if  the  husband  ask 
a  favor  from  his  wife,  nine  times  in  ten  she  will  in¬ 
quire  from  her  father-confessor  whether  or  not  she 
can  grant  him  his  request ;  and  the  poor  husband  will 
have  to  wait  patiently  for  the  permission  of  the  master, 
or  the  rebuke  of  the  lord,  according  to  the  answer  of 
the  oracle  which  had  to  be  consulted.  If  he  <>ets 
impatient  under  the  yoke,  and  murmurs,  the  wife 
will  soon  go  to  the  feet  of  the  confessor  to  tell  him  of 
the  fact.”  And  this  man  was  a  priest  of  Rome,  and 
took  confessions  for  twenty-three  years  ;  and  lives  to¬ 
day  to  defy  the  power  of  the  Pope,  notwithstanding 
the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  kill  him. 


423 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

What  is  the  influence  on  the  home  ?  He  says 
again.:  “  Thus  it  is  that  that  stupendous  imposture, 
the  dogma  of  auricular  confession,  does  completely 
destroy  all  the  links,  the  joys,  the  responsibilities 
and  divine  privileges  of  the  married  life  ;  and  trans¬ 
forms  it  into  a  life  of  perpetual,  though  disguised, 
adultery.  It  becomes  utterly  impossible  in  the 
church  of  Rome  that  the  husband  should  be  one  with 
his  wife,  and  that  the  wife  should  be  one  with  her 
husband:  a  ‘monstrous  being’  has  been  between 
them  both,  called  the  confessor.  Born  in  the  daykest 
ages  of  the  world,  that  being  has  received  from  hell 
his  mission  to  destroy  and  contaminate  the  purest  joys 
of  the  married  life,  to  enslave  the  wife,  to  outrage 
the  husband,  and  to  damn  the  world.” 

Turning  to  another  authority,  I  find  a  similar 
statement  in  regard  to  intervention  in  family  life,  as 
follows:  k‘  In  important  questions  affecting  the  family 
welfare —  the  education  of  his  children,  the  profes¬ 
sions  of  the  sons  and  the  marriages  of  the  daughters, — 
the  father  finds  his  rightful  authority  superseded  by 
the  silent  encroachments  and  underhand  influences  of 
the  confessor.  The  mutual  confidences  of  home 
disappear  :  its  tenderest  sympathies  are  destroyed  ; 
its  fondest  associations  are  marred  and  disfigured  ; 
and  the  cold  shade  of  the  priest  casts  a  withering- 
blight  over  its  best  and  purest  affections.”  “  The 
Confessional  of  De  Sanctis,”  says  his  translator, 
“  will  beat  least  a  timely,  and  in  many  cases  it  is  to 
be  hoped  an  efficacious  antidote.”  Father  Hyacinthe, 
that  famous  priest  of  whom  I  told  you  on  last  Sun- 


424  Romanism  and  the  Republic. 

day  night,  quoted  by  Chiniquy  in  “Priest, Woman  and 
Confessional,”  says,  concerning  the  character  of  the 
confessors,  that  99  per  cent,  of  them  live  in  sin  with 
their  female  penitents  ;  and  Father  Hyacinthe  was  the 
greatest  preacher  in  France,  until  he  renounced 
Romanism  and  left  the  pulpit  of  Notre  Dame.  1 
would  not  dare  to  say  as  much  as  he  said.  I  do  not 
know  as  much  as  he  knew.  But  the  man  who  was 
the  companion  of  Popes,  of  Archbishops  and  Car¬ 
dinals,  of  priests  and  confessors,  would  not  say  that 
unless  he  had  great  reason  so  to  say.  De  Sanctis 
adds  :  “  How  can  it  happen  otherwise,  if  immorality, 
thanks  to  confession,  is  reduced  by  Catholic  priests 
to  scientific  principles?  The  most  shameless  liber¬ 
tine  could  not  read,  without  blushing,  the  tilth  which 
is  contained  in  the  books  of  moral  theology.  And 
it  is  upon  these  books  that  the  education  of  the 
young  clergy  in  the  seminaries  is  formed.” 

He  proceeds  still  further  to  show  how  true  that  is. 
Discords  are  fomented  in  families,  by  the  confes¬ 
sional,  in  the  interests  of  the  church  ;  as  when  it  is 
'said:  “From  the  confessional  proceeds  the  most 
serious  discords  in  families  :  the  priest  is  determined 
to  rule  at  all  costs  ;  hence  you  must  either  fall  into 
his  ideas,  and  thus  make  yourself  his  slave,  or  else 
prepare  to  wage  a  family  war.  If  you  conform  to 
his  ideas,  you  will  no  longer  be  master  in  your  own 
house;  you  will  no  longer  be  able  to  do  anything 
without  the  placet  of  the  confessor :  he  will  thrust 
himself  between  you  and  your  wife  ;  and,  heedless  of 
that  sacred  bond,  a  meddlesome  priest  will  interpose 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


425 


with  his  counsels,  his  insinuations  :  he  will  interfere 
between  you  and  your  sons,  and  all  your  paternal 
authority  will  only  be  allowed  to  exert  itself  in  sub¬ 
ordination  to  the  dictates  of  your  priest :  he  will 
arrange  the  marriage  of  your  sons  ;  he  will  preside 
at  their  choice  of  a  profession  ;  he,  in  short,  will  be 
the  true  father  of  the  family  —  you  will  only  execute 
his  will.  Suppose  you  determine  to  escape  this 
state  of  degradation,  and  propose  to  maintain  your 
position  as  father  and  husband,  and  then  all  family 
peace  is  ruined  :  you  will  be  looked  on  as  an  infidel, 
and  as  such,  with  hypocritical  compassion,  the  con¬ 
fessor  will  describe  you  to  your  wife  and  to  your 
sons.” 

Do  you  ask  why  Roman  Catholic  men  do  not  escape 
from  the  Church  of  Rome  ?  Do  you  not  see  how  they 
are  bound?  “In  continual  contact  with  the  priest,” 
lie  says  of  women,  lads  and  old  men,  “and  feeble  by 
nature,  they  allow  themselves  to  be  imposed  upon 
by  him,  especially  in  matters  of  religion ;  and  hus¬ 
bands,  fathers  and  sons  dare  not  hazard  a  word  in 
the  family  circle  with  a  view  to  exposing  the  abuses 
of  the  clergy  on  religious  subjects  ;  they  dare  not 
read  the  Bible,  dare  not  enter  into  religious  con- 
wersations — both  to  avoid  throwing  a  gloom  over  per¬ 
sons  so  dear  to  them,  and  for  fear  of  being  denounced. 

For  the  priest  cannot  absolve  a  ivife  ora  son,  if, 
with  the  knowledge  that  the  husband  or  the  father 
speaks  of  the  Gospel  otherwise  than  in  the  sense  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  they  have  not  denounced  him 
to  the  Inquisition,  where  it  exists,  or  else  to  the 


426 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


bishop  where  the  Inquisition  exists  no  longer- 
Imagine,  then,  if  religious  progress  is  possible,  where 
the  discipline  of  the  confessional  exists.” 

We  have  a  record  here  which  I  will  state  and  not 
read,  that  in  the  days  when  Italy  was  struggling  to- 
throw  off  the  yoke  of  tyranny,  both  papal  and  civil, 
wives,  intimate  friends,  children,  in  tht  confessional r 
were  compelled  to  denounce  their  husbands,  fathers, 
lovers  and  friends  as  being  liberals,  in  the  sense  of 
loving  liberty,  and  the  result  was  their  banishment,, 
or  incarceration  in  the  dungeons  of  the  Inquisition y 
and  sometimes  death.  “Yea,  the  time  will  come  when- 
he  that  killeth  you  will  think  that  he  doeth  God- 
service.” 

4.  The  greed  of  the  confessors,  in  the  matter  of 
property,  I  must  let  you  into  the  secret  of.  This 
eminent  man  says,  that  confessors,  from  being  poorT 
become  rich.  ‘‘By  confession,  in  fact,  so  many 
families  are  immersed  in  poverty  ;  because  the  grasp¬ 
ing  confessor,  taking  advantage  of  the  weak  moments 
of  a  dying  man,  has  had  the  will  made  to  the  profit 
of  the  clergy  ;  and  facts  of  the  kind  may  be  reckoned 
by  the  million.  From  confession  arise  so  many 
separations  of  married  people — frequent  in  proportion 
to  the  frequency  of  confessions.” 

Now  you  know,  that  where  extreme  unction  must 
be  preceded  by  absolution  in  the  case  of  a  dying  man, 
the  priest  has  a  fearful  control  over  that  man  ;  and 
that  control  has  been  repeatedly  and  continually  used 
to  extort  from  the  dying  a  very  large  share  of  their 
property  for  the  Church.  De  Sanctis  says,  that  he 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


427- 


has  known  confessors  who  were  poor  when  they 
began  to  take  confessions,  and  afterwards  came  to 
live  in  the  splendid  homes  of  families  who  were 
reduced  to  absolute  poverty  by  the  changes  which 
those  confessors  made  in  the  wills  or  minds  of  their 
penitents.  For  example,  we  have  it  recorded  from 
very  numerous  authorities  (this  in  De  Sanctis  ;  it  is  a 
historical  statement  supplemented  by  the  names  of 
the  authorities),  that  the  “  grasping  cupidity  of 
ecclesiastical  will-hunters,  and  the  consequent  ruin  of 
innocent  and  helpless  families,  formed  the  subject  of 
an  indignant  remonstrance  of  the  German  princes  at 
the  Diet  of  Nuremberg.  That  the  Popes  should  have 
connived  at  these  fraudulent  artifices,  need  not  be  a 
matter  of  surprise  ;  for  a  considerable  number  of  the 
multitudinous  clerical  host  must,  no  doubt,  have 
died  intestate,  and  all  such  property,  by  a  decree  of 
Innocent  IV.,  was  to  escheat  to  the  Pope.  To  such  a 
length  was  this  execrable  practice  sometimes  carried, 
that  the  last  sacraments  were  denied  to  the  dying 
man  till  he  consented  to  make  a  will  in  the  priest’s 
favor.  To  facilitate  their  nefarious  designs,  the 
clergy  were  provided  with  testamentary  forms  that 
might  be  executed  at  a  moment’s  notice.  For  the 
further  promotion  of  ecclesiastical  interests,  wills, 
before  they  were  proved,  were  subject  to  a  private 
preliminary  examination  in  a  ‘  special  court  ’  called 
St.  Peter’s  Tribunal.  And  for  still  greater  security, 
Popes  are  equipped  with  the  power  of  altering  testa¬ 
mentary  dispositions  in  favor  of  the  Church.” 


428 


Romanism  and  tlie  Republic. 


Robbers  that  they  are  !  Equipped  with  power, 
from  what  source?  From  hell;  whence  lies,  thefts, 
corruptions  and  murders,  of  which  they  have  been 
among  the  chief  agents  in  the  history  of  time,  have 
been  vomited  forth.  Changing  testaments  indeed  ! 
Ay  !  they  have  changed  the  New  Testament  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour ;  they  have  changed  the  Old 
Testament ;  and  they  change  the  testamentary  wills 
of  men,  that  they  may  seize  hold  of  their  goods. 
“  Wycliffe,  on  his  death-bed,  testifies  that  the  priest 
attending  on  the  dying,  were  commanded  by  the 
Pope  to  extract  bequests  in  favor  of  the  Church.” 
Further,  it  is  said:  “How  different  the  proposed 
reform  is  from  the  present  corrupt  state  of  the  Roman 
priesthood,  may  be  safely  inferred  from  the  numerous 
trials  in  Irish  courts  of  justice,  in  spite  of  numbers  of 
cases  that  are  hushed  up  or  compromised,  where  the 
inheritance  of  the  deceased  is  disputed  between  the 
priest  and  the  surviving  relatives.”  When  Gregory 
"VII.,  with  a  power  equal  to  that  which  any  tyranni¬ 
cal  ruler  ever  exercised,  insisted  on  the  celibacy  of 
the  priests, —  when  he  separated  the  married  priests 
from  their  wives  and  from  their  children,  and  forced 
with  prodigious  earnestness  the  bond  of  celibacy  on 
the  priesthood, —  it  was  -specifically  declared,  more 
than  once,  that  the  purpose  was,  that  the  estates  of 
the  priests  might  go  to  the  Church,  instead  of  going 
to  the  wives  and  children  of  the  priests.  And  so 
one  reason  why  the  priests  of  Rome  cannot  marry, 
is  that,  grasping  the  property  of  their  people,  they 
hold  it  till  they  die,  and  give  it  to  other  priests  for 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


429 


the  Church.  Thus  the  Church  and  its  ecclesiastics 
abound  in  wealth,  and  their  people  abound  in  noth¬ 
ing  but  poverty. 

5.  The  confessional  is  the  assassin  of  liberty  in 
the  State.  There  can  be  no  liberty  (I  have  shown 
you  that  fully  in  preceding  discourses)  where  the 
Pope  of  Pome  has  his  way.  There  never  has  been, 
and  there  never  can  be.  What  does  one  say  who  well 
understands  Pome,  concerning  the  relation  of  the  con¬ 
fessional  to  liberty?  Father  Chiniquy  says  :  “  Have 
not  the  Popes  publicly  and  repeatedly  anathem¬ 
atized  the  sacred  principle  of  liberty  of  conscience? 
Have  they  not  boldly  said,  in  the  teeth  of  the  nations 
of  Europe,  that  liberty  of  conscience  must  be 
destroyed,  killed  at  any  cost?  Has  not  the  whole 
world  heard  the  sentence  of  death  to  liberty  coming 
from  the  lips  of  the  Old  Man  of  the  Vatican?  But 
where  is  the  scaffold  on  which  the  doomed  liberty 
must  perish?  That  scaffold  is  the  confessional  box. 
Yes,  in  the  confessional,  the  Pope  has  his  100,000 
high  executioners.  There  they  are,  day  and  night, 
with  sharp  daggers  in  hand,  stabbing  Liberty  to  the 
heart.”  He  says  again  :  “In  vain  chivalrous  Spain 
will  call  Liberty  to  give  a  new  life  to  her  people. 
Liberty  cannot  set  her  feet  there,  except  to  die,  so 
long  as  the  Pope  is  allowed  to  strike  her  in  his 
50,000  confessionals.  And  free  America,  too,  will 
see  all  her  so-dearly-bought  liberties  destroyed,  the 
day  that  the  confessional  box  is  universally  reared  in 
her  midst.  Auricular  Confession  and  Liberty  cannot 
stand  on  the  same  ground  ;  either  one  or  the  other 


430 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


must  fall.  Liberty  must  sweep  away  the  confessional 
as  she  has  swept  away  the  demon  of  slavery  ;  or  she 
is  doomed  to  perish.” 

I  refer  again  to  the  fact  that  Freemasonry  has 
always  been  an  object  of  intense  antagonism  to  the 
Papal  power,  and  you  can  see  better  now  than  at  any 
former  time  why  it  is  so.  Freemasonry,  in  the  old 
country,  has  been  to  some  extent  a  refuge  and  sanctu¬ 
ary  to  men  who  were  not  in  any  sense  political  con¬ 
spirators,  but  who  had  hope  in  one  another  and 
trusted  one  another ;  they  dared  to  hold  secrets  one 
with  another,  which  they  believed  for  their  mutual 
benefit  arid  the  welfare  of  the  State,  which  secrets 
they  would  not  tell  in  the  confessional,  and  which 
even  their  wives  and  children  could  not  know  or  tell 
in  the  confessional.  But  the  penalty  of  belonging  to 
that  society ;  the  penalty  of  harboring  a  member  of 
that  society  ;  the  penalty  for  failing  to  denounce  a 
member  of  that  society,  by  the  word  of  the  infallible 
Pope,  was  death.  You  know  why,  now.  Because 
the  Freemason  could  not,  and  would  not,  by  his  obli¬ 
gations,  put  himself  under  the  power  of  the  priest. 
I  have  often  thought  there  were  things  about  this 
great  society  that  needed  to  be  reformed.  But  I  tell 
you,  my  friends,  it  may  be  that  even  the  most  earnest 
antagonist  of  Freemasonry  may  see  in  it  one  of  the 
bulwarks  against  the  power  of  the  confessional  and 
the  Romish  Church  in  this  country.  I  do  not  say  it 
will  be  so  ;  but  I  tell  you,  it  is  getting  to  be  easy  for 
me  to  love  what  the  Pope  hates. 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


431 


6.  And  now  as  I  draw  to  a  close,  I  must  show 
that  as  the  Papacy  and  the  confessional  are  the 
enemies  of  liberty  and  the  assassins  of  the  same,  so 
the  confessional  is  the  foe  of  pure  religion  and  relig¬ 
ious  progress.  Can  anything  be  the  friend  of  pure 
religion  that  creates  immorality,  that  destroys  liberty, 
that  invades  and  plunders  the  home,  that  steals  the 
property  of  the  dying?  Oh,  do  not  talk  to  me,  my 
Roman  Catholic  brothers, —  do  not  talk  to  me  about 
the  glory  that  would  come  to  God,  through  evil 
doing.  There  is  no  glory  to  God  in  evil  doing.  If 
the  confessional,  as  seems  obvious  from  those  who 
know  all  the  facts  concerning  it,  is  the  friend  of 
immorality  and  creates  crime,  as  I  shall  have  to  show 
next  Sunday  night  more  fully  than  I  can  to-night, 
then  it  cannot  be  for  the  glory  of  God.  God  is  not 
glorified  by  wickedness. 

But  there  is  other  proof  than  this  that  the  confes¬ 
sional  is  the  enemy  of  pure  religion.  We  are  told 
that  it  advances  infidelity  and  ignorance,  by  this  most 
careful  writer,  De  Sanctis,  whom  I  quote  once  more  : 
4<  The  horrible  consequence,  however,  for  religion 
and  for  souls,  is  that  infidelity  advances  with  huge 
strides,  especially  in  Roman  Catholic  countries.  The 
enlightenment  of  the  age  no  longer  permits  men  to 
believe  in  the  priests  blindly,  as  in  the  times  of  igno¬ 
rance.  Free  discussion  alone  could  show  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church  are  not  those  of  the 
Gospel ;  discussion,  as  it  would  prove  their  falsehood 
to  a  demonstration,  would  establish  the  truth  of  the 
evangelical  doctrine.  Discussion  being  prevented,  it 


432 


Romanian.  and  the  Republic. 


follows  that,  seeing  clearly  the  falsehood  and  iniquity 
of  the  Roman  doctrines,  men  believe  them,  because 
they  are  not  discussed,  to  be  the  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  religion,  and  abandon  them,  and  live  in  in¬ 
difference  and  infidelity.  Rome  sees,  knows,  and  is 
silent :  she  never  quarrels  with  infidels,  unless  they 
speak  against  her  ;  but  her  quarrel  rather  is  with  those 
who,  laying  bare  her  abuses,  seek  to  bring  back  their 
brethren  to  the  Gospel,  the  religion  of  their  fathers* 
The  unbelieving  and  the  superstitious  equally  observe 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  are  equally  beloved  by  it ;; 
the  Gospel  alone  it  detests,  and  for  the  destruction 
of  the  Gospel  it  instituted  confession.” 

Furthermore  he  says  :  “If  confession  is  naturally 
ruinous  to  faith  and  morals,  religious  progress  under 
such  a  system  is  manifestly  impossible.  Confession 
is  the  great  obstacle  opposed  by  the  Popes  to  the 
re-establishment  of  the  Gospel ;  hence  it  is  necessary 
to  demolish  such  an  obstacle  to  religious  progress.” 
And  then  he  proceeds  to  the  proof  in  great  detail. 

It  was  intended,  especially  at  the  outset,  to  uproot 
heresy.  The  Popes’  object  for  auricular  confession 
was  more  this  than  anything  else.  For  example  : 
“  Innocent  III.,  the  most  knavish  and  the  most  auda¬ 
cious  of  all  who  have  ever  occupied  the  Roman  See, 
resorted  to  the  remedy.”  In  the  fourth  Lateran 
Council  after  having  proclaimed  crusades,  after  having 
canonized  persecution  against  those  who  published 
the  Gospel,  he  instituted  compulsory  confession  for 
all  the  followers  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  a  measure 
of  preventive  policy,  to  compel  denunciation  of 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


433 


heretics  under  penalty  of  eternal  damnation ;  and 
thus  confession,  which  at  first  was  free,  became  com¬ 
pulsory,  and  was  afterwards  converted,  by  the  deci¬ 
sion  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  into  a  dogma  of  faith 
and  a  sacrament.  The  aim  of  confession  therefore,  is 
to  prevent  all  religious  progress,  and  maintain  igno¬ 
rance  and  superstition.”  Has  it  practically  and  ac¬ 
tually  corrupted  religion  ?  There  can  be  no  doubt  of 
this.  A  word  or  two  more  :  “  Nor  can  it  be  alleged 
that  certain  Popes  have  misused  religion,  and  that  the 
abuses  ought  therefore  to  be  attributed  to  the  individ- 
ual  and  not  to  the  system.  From  Sylvester  to  our 
time,  all  the  Popes,  some  more,  some  less,  have  con¬ 
tributed  to  transform  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  to  build  up  the  system  of  oppression  and  politi¬ 
cal  annihilation  on  the  ruins  of  liberty  and  progress. 
Nay,  the  very  Popes  who  have  been  most  conspicuous 
in  this  work  of  destruction,  are  adored  as  heroes  on 
the  altars  of  Rome.”  Then,  speaking  of  Gregory  VII., 
he  says  :  “  Gregory  VII.  is  on  the  altars  of  Rome,” 
(that  is,  he  is  a  canonized  saint),  “  and  the  ferocious 
Ghislieri  (Pius  V.),  who,  in  the  name  of  God  and  of 
the  religion  of  the  Gospel,  taught  the  despot  Charles 
IX.  that  he  could  never  obtain  from  God  the  pardon 
of  his  sins  if  he  did  not  shed,  without  the  slightest 
compunction,  the  blood  of  his  subjects  who  asked  for 
the  pure  Gospel, —  is  not  he  also  on  the  altars  of 
Rome?”  See  what  they  worship.  “In  canonizing 
such  men,  the  Popes  have  canonized  their  doctrine; 
hence  it  cannot  be  said  that  despotism,  obscuration, 
oppression  of  nations,  and  hatred  for  any  kind  of 


434 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


progress,  exist  through  the  mal-practice  of  any  one 
of  the  Popes  ;  they  exist  by  the  very  system  of  the 
jPapacy.  But  the  Popes,  to  establish  their  dominion, 
have  butchered  them  by  the  million.  But  among  so 
many  Popes,  has  there  been  one,  one  only,  who  has 
deplored  such  abuses  ?  Therefore  the  corruption  of 
religion  ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  abuse  of  it  by 
the  individual,  but  to  the  system  ;  therefore  the  sys¬ 
tem  ought  to  be  reformed ;  therefore  the  Gospel 
ought  to  reign  in  its  purity,  and  ought  to  be  delivered 
from  this  great  enemy  ;  and  Italy  and  Rome  ought 
to  confer  upon  the  world  this  great  benefit  of  despoil¬ 
ing  the  Popes  of  their  usurped  power,  and 
re-establishing  on  the  ruins  of  the  Papacy  the  pure 
religion  of  Christ.” 

We  have  come  to  the  edge  of  a  prceipice.  There 
are,  no  doubt,  in  this  church  to-night,  many  brave 
hearts,  who,  with  strength  from  purity,  will  dare 
with  me  to  descend,  scaling  the  face  of  this  precipice, 
into  the  fearful  abyss  below.  My  friends,  I  beg  you 
to  remember  as  I  close,  that  if  we  have  shown  the 
immorality  and  the  hypocrisy  of  this  system  of  con¬ 
fession — if  we  have  shown  that  it  is  a  system  of  spies 
for  the  overthrow  of  freedom — if  we  have  shown  that 
it  is  a  foe  to  the  family  and  an  assassin  to  liberty, 
working  the  ruin  of  pure  religion,  in  so  doing  we 
have  only  touched  on  the  beginnings  of  its  actual 
wickedness,  and  of  the  ruin  which  it  works.  And  if 
you  have  hearts  bold  enongh  to  hear,  and  God  gives 
me  judgment  and  wisdom  enough  to  speak,  I  will  let 
•  you  down  into  those  nether  depths  where  you  can 


% 


Romanism  and  the  Republic. 


435 


see  in  all  its  horrors,  the  beastly  immorality  of 
priests  and  people,  of  Popes,  Cardinals  and  bishops, 
of  men,  women  and  children,  as  the  result  of  this 
wicked,  ungodly,  unscriptural,  and  unchristian 
system  of  auricular  confession. 


Note  by  the  Author. — The  Author  begs  to  say, 
in  closing  this  work  thus  abruptly,  that  already  it 
has  grown  nearly  150  pages  beyond  expectation. 
Manifestly,  the  discussion  is  not  here  completed. 
The  patient  reader  has  noted  the  logical  order  of  the 
book,  and  that  up  to  the  close,  it  is  a  compacted 
whole. 

The  Introductory  discourse  leads  to  the  second ; 
which,  of  necessity,  finds  in  the  Jesuits  the  control¬ 
ling  force  of  the  Papacy  ;  they  furnishing,  in  their 
principles  and  history,  the  key  to  the  Papal  inten¬ 
tion.  Their  pope  is  portrayed,  in  the  third  chapter, 
as  the  enemy  of  civil  and  religious  freedom — as  are 
they.  And  particularizing,  the  Papacy  is  shown,  in 
the  fourth  and  fifth  discourses,  to  be  antagonistic  to 
the  Constitution  and  to  the  Laws  of  the  American 
Republic.  Thus  their  hostility  to  universal  educa¬ 
tion  is  manifestly  based  on  irreconcilable  animosity 
to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  Government. 
The  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  chapters  develope  the 
purpose  of  Romanism  to  destroy  our  Public  Schools  ; 
showing  the  alleged  and  actual  reasons  for  their  at¬ 
tempt.  Claiming,  as  they  do,  to  educate,  naturally 
we  ask  and  answer,  in  the  ninth,  tenth  and  eleventh 


436 


Romanism  and  the  Republic . 


discourses,  the  burning  question,  What  do  they  pro¬ 
pose  to  substitute  for  Common  School  education  ?  or, 
“The  morality  which  Romanism  would  teach  Ameri¬ 
can  youth.” 

A  few  general  observations  previously  omitted, 
upon  parochial  schools,  make  up  the  twelfth  sermon. 
And  then,  to  show  how  Roman  Catholic  peoples  are 
suppressed  and  throttled ;  to  show  also  why  they 
yield  though  they  protest,  the  Confessional  is  ex¬ 
posed  to  view  as  the  place  where  Papal  tyranny 
forges  the  chains  which  bind  them. 

Naturally,  beyond  these  observations,  much  re¬ 
mains.  The  two  discourses  unveiling  the  confes¬ 
sional,  spoken  to  men  only,  are  needed  to  complete 
the  picture.  The  dogmas,  the  priesthood,  the  finan¬ 
cial  greed  and  its  impoverishing  consequences,  re¬ 
main  to  be  discussed,  and  sharp  contrasts  drawn 
between  the  policy  of  a  true  Christian  Church,  and 
this  politico-ecclesiastical  tyranny.  These  the  author 
may  sometime  put  before  the  public  as  complemen¬ 
tary  to  the  foregoing,  believing  that  the  free  dis¬ 
cussion  of  Romanism,  in  all  its  monstrous  deformity, 
is  sure  to  detach  from  it  those  who,  in  the  growth  of 
their  knowledge  concerning  the  true  Christian  re¬ 
ligion,  will  behold  in  the  Papacy  the  worst  enemy  of 
a  genuine  Christianity,  and  of  the  civil  freedom  of  a 

i '  '  ;  .  1 

Republic. 


WHAT  THE  JESUITS  TEACH. 

MURDER,  LYING,  THIEVING,  PERJURY, 
AND  A  LONG  LIST  OF  UNMENTION- 

BLE  CRIMES. 

A  SOCIETY  THE  VILEST  OF  THE  VILE. 
CAN’T  GET  AWAY  FROM  IT. 

NO  MISTAKE  THIS  TIME! 


Everybody  Read 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Jesuits. 

Warranted  a  genuine,  standard  text-book  of  the 
Society  of  Jesus,  by  Jesuit-instructor  Gury,  of 
Rome.  Translated  from  the  French  of  the  eminent 
statesman,  the  late  Paul  Bert. 

It  is  a  book  which,  when  it  is  widely  circulated, 
is  calculated  to  cause  all  its  readers  to  combine  to 
secure  from  the  Government  the  expulsion  of  the 
Jesuits,  and  the  suppression  of  their  doctrines  as 
crimes , —  which  they  really  are. 

Some  of  those  doctrines  are  : 

Woman  is  not  to  be  believed,  being  naturally 
given  to  lying ;  she  is  simply  a  beast ;  her  husband 
is  her  owner,  and  may  punish  her  severely  if  she  fails 
to  attend  to  her  religious  duties  ;  from  her  comes  the 
-evil  to  man ;  the  hatred  of  a  man  is  better  than  the 
love  of  a  woman. 

To  get  an  inheritance  one  may  murder  his  own 
father ;  a  bad  man  may  take  life  to  save  from  expos¬ 
ure ;  fornication  is  not  wrong  in  itself;  slavery  is 
right ;  a  man  may  innocently  make  another  drunk  ;  he 
may  even  make  one  drunk  out  of  charity,  to  prevent 


2 


him  from  blaspheming ;  the  Pope  may  grant  a  man 
the  right  to  live  in  incest  and  be  guiltless. 

Stealing  is  all  right:  a  workman  may  secretly 
steal  from  his  employer,  if  he  thinks  he  is  not  pay¬ 
ing  him  enough  wages  ;  a  servant  may  steal  to  take 
to  poor  relations  ;  children  may  steal  from  parents. 

Lying  and  perjury  are  allowable  and  not  wicked  if 
one  inwardly  qualifies  his  statement,  adds  words  giv¬ 
ing  it  another  sense,  or  speaks  materially  only,  in¬ 
tending  that  what  he  says  shall  have  no  meaning. 

The  State  is  subject  to  the  Pope ;  priests  are  not 
accountable  to  civil  magistrates ;  no  law  is  binding 
on  Romanists  which  has  not  been  accepted  by  the 
Vatican  ;  Protestants  are  heretics ;  married  Protes¬ 
tants  are  living  in  filthy  concubinage ;  having  been 
baptized,  they  are  the  Pope’s  subjects,  although  in 
revolt  and  denying  his  jurisdiction  ;  if  sick  in  hospi¬ 
tals  where  nuns  are  nurses,  Rome  forbids  the  nurses 
to  send  for  Protestant  ministers,  even  though  the  sick 
desire  to  see  them. 

Letters  may  be  opened  and  correspondence  read  ; 
and  a  thousand  other  enormities  are  countenanced 
and  taught.  Besides  all  which  there  are  several  cess¬ 
pools  of  carnality  that  we  were  obliged  to  leave  cov¬ 
ered  with  foreign  languages. 

Get  the  book :  read  it,  lend  it,  tell  everybody  of 
it,  till  the  self-respecting  priest  and  layman  wash, 
their  hands  of  this  vile  “religion.” 


(JJ^Can  be  obtained  of  the  Publisher  of  “Roman¬ 
ism  and  the  Republic,”  price  $1.50. 


4 


.  ■ 


aatv-  i  /'  ■ 

- 


••  ;  •  .t 

. 

e;L  .  : 

.  *  ■' 

,  K.;  - 

’  v  -  •  - 

..  V  '• 

* 

jo 1  i 


. 


fT!  ' 


<  •  >  -  ,  :  ‘ 


. 


■  ]:■/:  'T  :•  ■  j  •  ;  ■  •  ■ 

* 

•  •  :  ;3  U  . 

W.**  f  •- 

■ 

’  o .  •  .  v<  ••  .  :  ■  • 

':■•:••  :: 

'  ’  fj  '  :■  ,  l:  /.■ !. 


....  io 

.  ,  i  -  <  >  ip  >  .  .  1 


DOES  NOT  CIRCULATE 


L  a  n  s  i  n  £  y  I  s  a  a  c  J  ?  .1.  8  4  6 


R  o  in  a  n  i  s  m  a  n  d  t  h  e  r  e  p  u  b  1  :i.  c 


Boston  College 
Libraries 

Chestnut  Hill,  Mass. 


02167 


